Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 20 March at Seven o'clock.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],

That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 22 March.

HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PENZANCE SOUTH PIER EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 20 March at Seven o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: As the remaining 12 Bills have blocking motions, with the leave of the House, I shall put them together.

SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a second time on Thursday 22 March.

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL ( By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [27 February],

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 22 March.

EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL
(By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL ( By Order)

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

HUMBERSIDE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL ( By Order)

CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 22 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

ECOFIN

Mr. Coleman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proceedings of the most recent meeting of ECOFIN.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I represented the United Kingdom at the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers on 12 March. The main topics discussed included the implications of German economic and monetary union, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the revision of the financial perspective, the problem of fraud against the Community budget and the report of the European Court of Auditors for 1988.

Mr. Coleman: I am grateful to the Minister. Can he tell us how he intends to persuade our European partners to locate the new European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in London particularly with such a grudging attitude about Europe on the part of the United Kingdom—for example, our reluctance over the social charter and the exchange rate mechanism? Can he tell us what powers of persuasion he has?

Mr. Ryder: Our case is irresistible. It is so irresistible that we have produced the excellent brochure that I have with me. I shall be more than happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy. Over lunch last Monday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to raise the matter as part of the lunchtime agenda. The case for bringing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to London is clear. More than 520 foreign banks are already located in London. It is Europe's financial centre, and the centre of the Eurobond market, and we do more banking work with eastern Europe than any other banking capital in Europe. I hope that I have the hon. Gentleman's support and the support of the entire House in trying to get the EBRD to London.

Mr. Soames: In my hon. Friend's distinguished contribution at the ECOFIN meeting, did he have the opportunity to tell his colleagues on that body of the substantial support in industry in this country for full British membership of the European monetary system?

Mr. Ryder: The conditions for Britain's entry to the exchange rate mechanism were clearly spelt out at the Madrid summit last summer. As many people have already said, the question is not whether we should enter the ERM, but when.

Mr. Hoyle: If the case is so overwhelming, will the Minister explain what will be said about the deficit on invisible earnings? For the first time since those figures have been recorded, they are in deficit——

Mr. Ryder: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hoyle: The Minister may shake his head—does he deny that the figures are in deficit? If he wants to deny it, he should get up and say so. Will he tell us what this incompetent and inept Government will do to remedy this sad state of affairs?

Mr. Ryder: This question relates to ECOFIN. That matter was not discussed last Monday at the ECOFIN meeting.

Manufacturing Productivity

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the growth during the 1980s of manufacturing productivity in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other major industrial countries.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): The average annual growth of output per person employed in United Kingdom manufacturing industry between 1980 and 1988 was 5·3 per cent., compared to 3·4 per cent. for the other Group of Seven economies.

Mr. Tredinnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that unemployment in the east midlands has fallen by 20 per cent. in the past year? Is he further aware that employment in manufacturing has increased by 18,000 since 1983? What are the figures for manufacturing output? Have they increased under this Government? How do they compare with the figures under the previous Labour Government?

Mr. Lamont: Manufacturing output has increased. Manufacturing productivity has been a remarkable success story. It has grown faster in this country than in any other G7 country, including Japan and the United States. It has grown at twice the rate of the 1970s and it is higher than it was in the 1960s. That helps to explain the remarkable success of industry in my hon. Friend's constituency and in neighbouring areas.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the Chief Secretary accept this, the last of my pre-Budget recommendations: that the 25 per cent. capital allowance for plant and machinery is hopelessly inadequate, given the level of inflation and the value of capital equipment, which deteriorates over the first year of its life? That level is not an investment incentive; it is an investment disincentive. Will the Chief Secretary seek to remedy it?

Mr. Lamont: I always listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and I note what he describes as a late Budget representation, although it seems to be a little wide of the original question.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for productivity to increase there must be more investment in manufacturing and research and development? Is he aware that in east Yorkshire and Hull an enormous amount of development is taking place? In my constituency, BP has just finished a new acetic acid plant

costing £250 million and has announced plans for a research laboratory, which will employ over 200 scientists and high-paid technicians.

Mr. Lamont: I am pleased to hear the good news from my hon. Friend's constituency. He is right that productivity is related to investment. However, it is related not to investment alone but also to good management and good industrial relations, which have improved remarkably.

Inflation

Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to have zero inflation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): I shall set out my forecast for inflation next week.

Mr. Steinberg: The fact is that the Government have no chance of getting inflation down to zero per cent., even though that was the stated aim of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will not fall significantly from the present rate of inflation. Many of my constituents are suffering great hardship because of the Chancellor's and the Government's policies. Many of them are facing hardship because of increases——

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness to the House, the hon. Gentleman should ask a single question.

Mr. Steinberg: Inflation has been fuelled by high interest rates, high rents, high gas and water prices and the dreaded poll tax.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is about enough.

Mr. Steinberg: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not at all fair to the hon. Gentleman's colleagues for him to ask several questions.

Mr. Major: I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was trying to talk out Question Time. The reality is that without utilising our present interest rate policy there will be no chance of bringing down the rate of inflation to a level that is tolerable for most people. To that end we shall continue to sustain monetary policy. It is important that we do so for economic and social reasons. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the community charge. It is perfectly true that the dramatic burst of spending by local government will raise the retail prices index, but much of that comes from local authorities of which the hon. Gentleman approves.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the way in which, to date, he has borne down on inflation? Does he agree that it will be far more difficult in future to resist the demands of those, from every section of the community, who recommend and enjoy inflation, and who will look to him for a major relaxation of credit before the next general election?

Mr. Major: I share with my hon. Friend the belief that it is vital to take whatever action is necessary to bring inflation down.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Chancellor aware that all three local authorities in the Mid-Staffordshire constituency—two of which are Conservative—have set poll tax levels


—[Interruption.] I have selected a constituency in which the Conservative party has a 14,000 majority. Surely that is perfectly fair. The three authorities have set levels significantly higher than the previous rate bills and far higher than the Government's ludicrous guidelines. Do not those examples and others throughout the land show clearly that the Secretary of State for the Environment was perfectly correct when he said that the poll tax would have a devastating impact on the retail prices index? Does the Chancellor agree with his colleague?

Mr. Major: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was uncharacteristically unreasonable in omitting from the beginning of his question the fact that the Labour county council covering that area has dramatically increased its expenditure. He also did not mention, for example, the quite astonishing and unreasonable community charge of more than £600 to be set by Labour-controlled Lambeth.

Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House what the rate of inflation was before 1979? Does he agree that if the Labour policy about which we know was implemented, we should have hyperinflation and a run on sterling?

Mr. Major: There is no doubt that Labour's policy would cause a run on sterling—and we have yet to find out precisely what Labour's policy will be in individual aspects. The Labour Government's inflation record speaks for itself. Their best month was still higher than our worst.

Income Tax

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has recently received any representations about the relationship between incentives to work and the level of income tax.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about income tax.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does not the incentive effect of lowering direct taxes more than offset any loss to the Treasury because it increases the general buoyancy of the economy? Will he apply that logic to women who may wish to go out to work and who would be encouraged to do so if they were allowed to offset some of the costs for help in the home or with children?

Mr. Lilley: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor heard that late pre-Budget representation. All that I can do is to refer my hon. Friend to my answer to a similar question in the previous Question Time.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Surely a better answer for the Financial Secretary to give to his hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) would have been to say that the Government's tax policies are specifically designed to advantage the well-off rather than the generality of the community. If he had wanted to give his hon. Friend an alternative answer, he could have said that the parliamentary Labour party was absolutely right and that next Tuesday, the Government would abolish the tax on workplace nurseries.

Mr. Lilley: I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question a little more fully by referring to the past and not to the future. The previous Labour Government had tax rates of

83 per cent. on the rich, but only 30,000 people paid them. Now that we have reduced the rates to 40 per cent. at the same level of income, 190,000 people pay them. People in the top 5 per cent. of incomes are paying 30 per cent. of the total income tax burden against only 24 per cent. at the end of the Labour regime. If anything, we have soaked the rich to everyone's satisfaction.

Mr. Tim Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that one person's tax relief is another person's tax bill? Introducing a new tax relief erodes the tax base. Will my hon. Friend, therefore, concentrate on the Government's long-term objective of reducing the standard rate of tax and thereby helping all taxpayers?

Mr. Lilley: I recognise my hon. Friend's point, which continues a fruitful discussion that we had at a recent Adjournment debate. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the House settle down please? It is very difficult to hear at this end of the Chamber.

Mortgage Interest

Mrs. Wise: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of mortgage interest paid by owner-occupiers for 1988; and what is the comparable amount in 1989.

Mr. Major: The total of interest payments depends both on interest rates and the amount of mortgages outstanding. Of the growth from £22·1 billion in 1988 to £32·4 billion in 1989 nearly half was due to the increase in the stock of mortgages.

Mrs. Wise: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept that the squeeze on home owners has put more than 400,000 of them into some form of arrears, and that the position of many of them and of the poorest will be worsened when the poll tax comes in? What does he intend to do to relieve that burden of debt?

Mr. Major: As the hon. Lady will know, the vast majority of borrowers are still keeping up with their mortgage payments, and I expect that to continue to be the case. Borrowers in serious difficulties account for less than 1 per cent. of the total number of borrowers.

Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the fact that for years and years the Opposition steadfastly opposed the sale of council houses, that even now Labour councils put obstacles in the way of people who want to buy their council houses and that under this Government there has been a record rise in home ownership, does not concern for the plight of the home owner sound rather odd coming from the lips of Opposition Members?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is correct in his observations, in particular that owner-occupation has risen dramatically. The demand for it continues and it will continue to rise.

Mr. Beith: Does the Chancellor recognise that the only way to get interest rates down without pushing inflation up is to combine membership of the exchange rate mechanism with a tighter fiscal stance? Since the Labour party is not prepared to do that, why does not he give it a try on Tuesday?

Mr. Major: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice, but he will understand that I have no intention of responding to it now.

Mr. Conway: Does my right hon. Friend think that those who now have a mortgage, who may want a different house, or those who aspire to have a mortgage, would benefit if we were to embrace the policy to freeze new mortgages advocated by the Opposition's environment spokesman, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)?

Mr. Major: What is certainly true is that the Opposition's policies would create a mortgage queue, which would help no one who wishes to become a home owner.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Chancellor realise that many home owners who are struggling not to fall into arrears will find his complacency deeply worrying? Has he taken no notice at all of the recent Policy Studies Institute report, which suggests that about 1 million people are in serious housing debt, especially as that report was published before the most recent mortgage and rent increases?

Mr. Major: The hon. Lady misjudges me if she thinks that I am complacent or unconcerned about the issue, but the reality is that only a relatively small number of borrowers are in difficulty. When that occurs, I hope that they will take the advice of their lender, whether a bank or building society, and I hope that, wherever possible, that lender will enable them to meet their mortgage payments by extending the mortgage. That is frequently the position. It has been in the past and I expect that it will be so in the future. But there is no doubt whatever that a premature move to bring down interest rates would not be to the benefit of the economy, would not assist us in bringing down inflation and would not assist mortgage holders either.

Mr. Wilkinson: Notwithstanding the necessity to maintain a tight monetary policy, I remind my right hon. Friend that many families in outer London face acute hardship because of great difficulty in keeping up with their mortgage payments and the rising cost of commuter fares. In his forthcoming Budget, will he ensure that he does not rely on monetary policy alone to restrain inflation? His predecessor's obsession with monetary policy was very damaging.

Mr. Major: As my hon. Friend knows, he will receive the answer to that question within a few days.

Mr. Speaker: Question No. 8 Mr. Cunliffe?
Question No. 9. Mr. John P. Smith? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]
Question No. 10. Mr. Randall?

Mr. Skinner: They are all in Staffordshire.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is always a help to the Chair if hon. Members who cannot be here to ask their questions inform the Chair.

Non-oil GDP

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of non-oil gross domestic product, non-oil taxes and national insurance contributions represented in (a) 1978–79 and (b) 1989–90.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Non-oil taxes and national insurance contributions amounted to 34·1 per cent. of non-oil GDP in 1978–79 and 37·1 per cent. in 1988–89, the latest available year.

Mr. McAvoy: Will the Minister admit that under the Tories, tax take has increased as a proportion of GDP? Will he further admit that the Tory claim to have reduced taxes is entirely bogus, given that the Government have reduced taxes only for the rich and increased them for the rest of us? Does the Minister think that the poll tax will help to reduce the overall burden of tax?

Mr. Lamont: I am sure that I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that if the Labour party were to choose to fight the next general election on which party would deliver tax cuts, we know who would win it. The hon. Gentleman is not on a good point, when the Labour party has voted against every tax cut that the Government have ever made. Is reducing the rate of income tax from 33p in the pound to 25p in the pound a tax cut or not? If we had simply carried on with the tax regime that we inherited, with the same rates, bands and allowances, and adjusted them for inflation, a married man on average earnings would be paying nearly £20 a week more. That is the tax burden that we had under the Labour party.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the virtuous circle brought about by the Government's low tax policies has meant more growth, more incentive and therefore a higher tax take for the Treasury? Does he further agree that, should the Labour party have the opportunity, unlikely as it seems, to put its policy of higher taxes, a wealth tax and an investment tax into operation, that would damage the good of the economy and therefore that increased tax take?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right, and the truth of what he says is shown in the rise in average living standards, which have gone up by nearly one third for the man on average earnings in the past 10 years, in contrast to the stagnation in living standards under the Labour party. In addition to the tax burden, the Labour Government also had a debt burden, which could not be financed out of taxes because the tax rates were penally high, so they had to finance borrowing out of inflation, which lowered living standards.

Dr. Marek: The Chief Secretary is adept at talking about tax cuts, but he talks only about income tax, when the total tax take has increased under the 11 years of this Government. As a result, total tax as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was when the Labour party was in office. If the Tory party is not to be permanently saddled with the tag of being the tax, tax and tax again party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes. The tax, tax and tax again party. Will the Chief Secretary give an estimate of when the tax level that existed under the Labour Government will come about as a result of the Tory Government's policies?

Mr. Lamont: That is a little bit like being lectured on celibacy by Mae West.

Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he has had it straight from those on the Opposition Front Bench that their policies, if they were elected, would be to put up the rate of tax, reduce the tax revenue to the Exchequer, and plunge the country back into the depths from which we rescued it in 1979?

Mr. Lamont: That is absolutely right. If we had a borrowing requirement burden similar to that which we had under the previous Labour Government, that alone would be the equivalent of 14p on income tax.

Mortgages

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the monthly payment on an average mortgage in July 1988; and what was the comparable figure in February 1990.

Mr. Lilley: The figures are £128·63 and £190·31.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Does the Minister share my concern about the clear connection between the huge increases in mortgage repayment figures and in homelessness? Is he aware that in Yorkshire and Humberside, during the 10 years of the present Government, homelessness has increased by 860 per cent? What are the Government doing to get to grips with the appalling human consequences of a high interest rate policy?

Mr. Lilley: We all recognise that high interest rates mean that families have to cut spending on other things for the time being. The level of repossessions in the past year was below that for the previous four years.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that rising interest rates are an international phenomenon from which we cannot insulate ourselves? Does he further agree that a policy of increasing public expenditure as practised by Labour councils and advocated by the Labour Front Bench team would lead only to higher interest rates?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct. No Labour Government to which Opposition Members could point—let alone a Conservative Government—have succeeded in reducing inflation without a period of high interest rates.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Financial Secretary must be aware that millions of families are facing mortgage bills that are £100 more than they were two years ago. In Mid-Staffordshire, the average is £50 extra a month. It is no comfort to such families to be told that it is an international phenomenom. When will the Financial Secretary and the Government end the exclusive reliance on interest rates as a mechanism for taking demand out of the economy?

Mr. Lilley: I recognise the difficulties of people with high interest burdens. We should remember, however, that under this Government living standards for the average family with two children and on average earnings have increased by 32 per cent. more than inflation. The index takes account of mortgage interest payments. Under the Labour Government, the increase was only 1 per cent.

Valuation Offices

Mr. Key: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are currently employed in Inland Revenue valuation offices.

Mr. Lilley: There are 5,748 staff currently employed in the Inland Revenue valuation offices.

Mr. Key: Given the many appeals against business revaluations in my constituency and throughout rural

England, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the valuation offices can cope with the increase in revaluations and appeals effectively and to the advantage of the taxpayer?

Mr. Lilley: We are confident that the burden of revaluations and appeals will be met by the valuation offices. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has a problem with the local valuation office that is due to close in Salisbury. I assure him, however, that his constituents will be served satisfactorily from Swindon and Southampton.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the Inland Revenue is being swindled out of £1 million a day by employers who are taking insurance contributions and not passing them over to the relevant authorities? Is he further aware that if the Government used as many inspectors to follow those employers as they do to hound one-parent families out of their DSS benefit, they would retrieve much-needed money for the Exchequer?

Mr. Lilley: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that that is not the responsibility of the valuation offices. I rather thought that he would ask whether the valuation offices would be able to cope with revaluing everybody's house every year according to its rising capital value if a roof tax were imposed. I have to tell him that they would not be able to cope, and nor would the British people.

Mr. Roger King: My hon. Friend took my supplementary question out of my mouth with his latter comments. As the point bears repeating, will he estimate how many people it would require to value every property in every street to implement a roof tax?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend clearly has powers of telepathy. I am grateful to him for prompting me. I assure him that it would need armies of valuation officers to revalue everyone's house every year to impose an ever-rising roof tax on them. It would put taxation through the roof.

Confederation of British Industry

Mr. Duffy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to next meet the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry; and whether the current level of interest rates will be on the agenda.

Mr. Ryder: My right hon. Friend will be addressing the CBI's annual dinner on 17 May.

Mr. Duffy: As now is the time—or so the House has been led to believe—when the economy will begin to turn the corner, inflation will be brought under control and interest rates will begin to edge downwards, what prospects will the Chancellor of the Exchequer offer to the CBI at the dinner in May? Will it still be a story of "Great Expectations" or will he own up, at long last, to "Bleak House"?

Mr. Ryder: When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has the pleasure of dining with the CBI in May, he will be able to remind it that in the 1980s we had low inflation compared with the 1970s. The highest rate of inflation under this Government is lower than the best achieved by Labour—[Interruption.] The underlying strength of the British economy is as great as that of most other countries in the western world. Investment has been increasing by 40 per cent. in the past three years. Profitability has hit record


levels. Manufacturing productivity in Britain in the 1980s has been higher than for 20 or 30 years—[Interruption.] Moreover, the British growth rate in the 1980s is far higher than in the 1970s, when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There seems to be a carnival atmosphere. I ask the House to settle down.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Confederation of British Industry has enjoyed a period of sustained growth—the longest since the second world war—and a longer period of sustained and increasing profits than at any time since the second world war? Does he further agree that wages are a much more important factor in arriving at costs than the cost of borrowing money will ever be?

Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is right to say that the 1980s have been a period of great economic success, not least in Scotland. He is also right to warn against high unit labour costs. Those high costs prevent Britain from becoming even more prosperous and prevent employers from taking on more people at their places of work.

Interest Rates

Mr. Turner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the Government's policy on interest rates.

Mr. Ryder: Fifteen per cent. interest rates are tightening demand.

Mr. Turner: Will the Chancellor confirm that his team is at the top of the OECD inflation table entirely because the right hon. Gentleman keeps scoring own goals through his high interest rate policy?

Mr. Ryder: To be fair to him, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been well briefed for this question. Britain is not top of the OECD inflation league by a long chalk. Many other countries in Europe have higher inflation rates than Britain, as do others in the OECD.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does my hon. Friend agree that one factor in this complex consideration is that if we were to join the exchange rate mechanism, interest rates would become a much more important element in combating inflation than they are ever at the moment?

Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is trying to entice me crown an incredibly attractive path, but I shall resist the temptation. As he knows, the question is not when—[Interruption.]—not whether, but when we shall join the ERM. He also knows that we shall pursue the conditions set out at the Madrid summit last summer. As soon as those conditions have been met, we shall enter the ERM.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister will be aware that, as a result of high interest rates, many home owners are considering remortgaging packages, which may appear to them to be attractive. Is he aware of a difficulty here? At present home owners get tax relief on that part of the mortgage with which they acquired their property and on home improvements, provided that they were carried out before 1988. Is he aware that if they remortgage they lose out on tax relief on that part which involves the home

improvements scheme? That is a very important consideration. Will the Minister make a statement or, if he wishes to reflect on it, will he write to me?

Mr. Ryder: I shall certainly pass on the hon. Member's Budget recommendation to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The hon. Gentleman is right to this extent: high mortgage rates cause a great deal of anxiety to people with mortgages, particularly young married couples. As soon as we can get inflation on a sustained downward path, interest rates and mortgages will follow.

Mr. Knapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the short-term pain of high interest rates is preferable to the long-term pain of inflation—£1,000 in 1960 had a purchasing power of only £160 in 1980? Does he agree that we must never allow that to happen again?

Mr. Ryder: We must never allow it to happen again, but it will if the Labour party ever gets a chance or a sniff of office. Their record in the 1960s and the 1970s showed that they do not care at all about high inflation and how it affects people with mortgages and savings. The rates of interest and of inflation in the 1970s were a particular problem to elderly people with savings. It is to them that the Labour party would mete out its policies if it ever won office again.

OECD

Mr. Madden: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which OECD countries have, by latest estimates, trade deficits that are bigger as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ryder: Information on the current account deficit in the United Kingdom is contained in the Central Statistical Office's latest balance of payments press release of 13 March 1990, and on United Kingdom gross domestic product in the CSO's national accounts press release of 21 December 1989. Figures for each of the other OECD countries are published by OECD in the December 1989 issue of "Economic Outlook".

Mr. Madden: Cutting through all that verbiage, is not the reality that Britain's trade deficit is the largest in Europe and that this is a shameful record for the Government's economic policies over the past 11 years? Does the Minister remember that the former Chancellor, the unlamented right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), used to pooh-pooh the trade deficit by saying that it could be financed by invisible trade? What is the Government's excuse for the present shameful trade deficit?

Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman refers to Britain's trade deficit. Many other countries in the western world have a trade deficit, including the United States, Italy, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Australia. The truth is that the British trade deficit is improving; the volume of manufacturing exports was up by 11 per cent. last year and the CBI believes that there will be further improvement in the months ahead. The hon. Gentleman is even gloomier than normal.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend speculate on the effect on Britain's trade performance if the Government were to support every inflationary wage


demand in sight, increase income tax and increase corporation tax—all policies supported by the Labour party?

Mr. Ryder: To be fair to the Labour party, I am not sure whether it supports those policies. The Labour party has refused to say what its policies are. We have opinions from the Labour party, but no policies.

Mr. Boateng: We are used to the excuses of the Economic Secretary and this Government for our failures in relation to visible earnings. Will the hon. Gentleman give us what will no doubt become the usual excuse for our failure to secure a satisfactory position in relation to invisible earnings? Why do we, for the first time since the Napoleonic war, have a deficit in our invisible earnings? Is it because the right hon. Lady and her Government have succeeded in doing to our country's economy what Napoleon never did—destroy it?

Mr. Ryder: If the hon. Gentleman reads the press releases, he will find that during the past year invisibles have been erratic, but we hope that their performance will improve this year. The hon. Gentleman should read the details of the press releases from the CSO rather more carefully than, I fancy, he has to date.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that, day in and day out in this House, we are subjected to the Opposition rubbishing British industry? Is not the truth of the matter that the industrial base of this nation is as strong as ever, and that we are importing goods so that we may value-add to them and sell them at a profit? This nation is outstripping the rest of Europe in production and in the creation of jobs. Why do the Opposition keep rubbishing our industry?

Mr. Ryder: The short answer is that my hon. Friend speaks for Britain, and the Labour party does not.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall he having further meetings later today.

Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision of Mr. Jacques Delors, president of the European Commission, in rejecting the proposals for new labour laws as part of the social charter of the European Community? Does not that show that she was right in being the first to speak up against these damaging proposals, despite the fact that they were being put forward so enthusiastically by the Labour party and its Socialist allies? Is not it a shame that—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Butterfill: Is not it a shame that when this was first reported in the national newspapers the comment that my right hon. Friend was "isolated" made the front page, whereas now the item makes only page 11?

The Prime Minister: I join my hon. Friend in being grateful that greater realism and common sense are coming into Brussels. It would be quite absurd to create a common market and then to tie it up with bureaucracy and Socialism. With regard to our sometimes being isolated, as we were in respect of the social charter, I should say that we got the right result then, and many people who criticised us at the time are now taking our view. So we were right.

Mr. Hattersley: Following the tragic events in Iraq earlier today, may I make it clear that the Opposition will support the Government in taking the strongest possible action, consistent with international law, in response to the barbaric execution of Mr. Farzad Bazoft? We are, of course, aware of the importance of doing all that we can to protect Mrs. Daphne Parish and Mr. Ian Richter. The Government, by their actions as well as their words—[Interruption.] Some of us regard this as a grave matter. As I am sure the Prime Minister agrees, the Government, by their actions as well as their words, must express the sense of outrage that is felt throughout the country.

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a very grave and serious matter. The Iraqi Government's action is an act of barbarism which is deeply repugnant to all civilised people. We extend our sympathy to Mr. Bazoft's family and colleagues. I agree that we must consider Mrs. Parish, who is still in prison in Iraq, as well as Mr. Richter, on whose behalf we have made many representations. The right hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be making a statement after questions, so I think that further details should be left until then.

Mr. Malins: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Malins: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment at the decision of the Irish Supreme Court to release two IRA terrorists? Does she further agree that that could damage the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that the action is an unjustified attack and slur on the Northern Irish prison service?

The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The suggestion that anyone extradited to Northern Ireland would be maltreated is grossly offensive and totally unjustified. The Northern Irish prison service is run by dedicated and courageous people who do a very difficult job. I fear that such a judgment may encourage terrorists to the view that they will probably find a safe haven in the Republic of Ireland, and that is very serious.

Dr. Thomas: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Thomas: Does the Prime Minister know that she recently scored 66 per cent. in a popularity poll in Lithuania—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May we have the rest of the question, please?

Dr. Thomas: Will she reciprocate that affection by declaring her support for the right of the Lithuanian people to negotiate their independence and their return to full statehood?

The Prime Minister: I am very pleased to hear the news that the hon. Gentleman has given to the House. Those people, along with many others, are fighting Socialism. They know the poverty of Socialism and they are trying to get rid of it. The matter must now be taken up in discussion with President Gorbachev. I hope that the outcome will be satisfactory to everyone.

Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's determination to keep their spending under control is one factor that keeps public investment flooding into this country? Since the last thing that we want is to call in the International Monetary Fund to bail us out again, as happened under Labour, will she reaffirm that she intends to stick to her courageous line?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that we get a great deal of inward investment from Germany, Japan and other investors because they know that the Government will continue to pursue sound economic polices, to have the right industrial law, to resist nationalisation, to privatise more industries and to have lower taxes than we have had at any time since before the war. All those things are vital to investors and to the prosperity of the country.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Prime Minister reconsider her reply at Question Time on Tuesday that not paying the poll tax is anti-democratic and a bad example to set to all young people? Does not she realise that 42·5 per cent., or over 205,000, of the people in Glasgow, are not paying the poll tax, and that they and the millions who are about to join them in England and Wales are deeply insulted by her remarks, because it is for their children and their families that those who can't pay won't pay? I and others on this side of the Chamber are proud to stand alongside those people in Scotland.

The Prime Minister: Deliberately to disobey a law, properly passed through all its stages in Parliament, is thoroughly anti-democratic and contrary to the rule of law, and leads to all the acts of dictatorship against which the House stands firmly. I repeat what I said: it is anti-democratic and against the rule of law. It sets a bad example to children and young people and should never be propounded from the House.

Mr. Cash: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cash: Has my right hon. Friend noted that the Labour-controlled county council in Staffordshire, which runs the education of that county, has produced results showing that 11 per cent. of all who leave school do so without educational qualifications? Should not the people

of Staffordshire closely examine the way that that county council runs its affairs, to ensure that it gets the retribution that it deserves in the forthcoming election?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Whether in central, county council or district council government, we all have a duty to obtain the best value for money, whether it is the community charge or taxpayers' money. High-spending councils often do not get the best value for money in education or other services. Our community charge plans will enable people to scrutinise their local councils more competently to ensure that their money is well spent and to take action if it is not, and if the community charge is too high. Our education reforms will give parents more say in the education of their children and enable them to see how well they are doing. That is thoroughly to be recommended.

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cohen: Last week the Prime Minister told me that home repossessions were one third of I per cent. Has not the Council of Mortgage Lenders said that the number of people who are six to 12 months in arrears has risen by 29 per cent., and that 500,000 families are now two to six months in arrears? Are not the Government's high interest rate policies to blame, and will they do anything about it in next week's Budget? Should not new home buyers have been warned that they are home owners only on borrowed time?

The Prime Minister: As I told the hon. Gentleman last week, 99·2 per cent. of people are able to pay their mortgages in the normal way. Of course, some are in difficulty. If they are in difficulty with building societies, in most cases the building societies will extend the mortgage or make other arrangements to enable them to pay. That is frequently done. Frequently the value of the asset for which they are receiving the mortgage has increased considerably since they first took out the mortgage.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that industry in the north-west has undergone a resurgency since she took office? Unemployment has fallen substantially, not least in my constituency of Lancaster, where it fell by 0·4 per cent. in the past month alone.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Industry is far stronger now. Restrictive practices have gone, the rate of investment in industry is higher and exports are increasing. Today's news from the unemployment front is that there are now more jobs than ever before: nearly 27 million. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe. On the day that the unemployment figures were announced, Opposition Members used to be the first to get up to ask about them. But they never ask about them now, because we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe. We have created more jobs than they have, and that tells its own story.

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday, 15 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Flynn: Will the Prime Minister join the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation and independent consultants in denouncing the wickedly dishonest advertising and overselling of personal pensions? Already, over 1 million people are likely to be worse off because they have been misled, taken the Government bribe and left SERPS. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that when the time is right for those cheated 1 million to return to SERPS, there will be a full-blooded Government advertising campaign to inform them of the truth?

The Prime Minister: I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's premise and the language in which he expressed it. People are perfectly free to take out personal pensions. They take a burden off SERPS, which is why they receive a certain amount from it when setting up pensions. Many people have exercised their choice. I recognise that choice is anathema to Socialism, which is why Socialism will be rejected in this part of Europe as it has been in eastern Europe.

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Mahon: Is the Prime Minister aware that the privatised British Telecom is charging people £80 in certain areas before it will install a telephone? Does she think that that is a good advertisement for the privatised system, remembering that people do not get the £80 back until they have paid four consecutive bills? That is a disgrace. Does she agree that things were better when BT was public?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady looks at the record of British Telecom since it has been privatised she will find that it is giving a much better service. Because of the regulatory regime, it has not been able to increase its prices by anything like the rate of inflation, so in real terms prices have gone down since privatisation. That is good news for all telephone users.

Mr. Farzad Bazoft (Execution)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about Mr. Bazoft.
The Iraqis executed Mr. Farzad Bazoft this morning. Her Majesty's consul-general visited him early this morning.
I can recall no recent case in which such a strong and unanimous view was expressed across the world in favour of clemency. That view has been ignored. The House will wish to express its total revulsion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] At a time when the international scene shows many signs of hope and humanity, we have been reminded that there are still regimes capable of a pitiless disregard for human rights.
I have instructed our ambassador to return home. We are suspending all planned ministerial visits.
We are stopping the training of Iraqis on Ministry of Defence courses. Students on these courses will return to Iraq without completing their courses.
We shall seek support from the Twelve and from our friends and allies in condemning Iraq's action.
I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I extend to Mr. Bazoft's family our deep sympathies on this tragic outcome. We shall continue to work for the release of Mrs. Parish and Mr. Ian Richter from their harsh sentences in Iraq.
We made a strenuous and prolonged effort by many means to save Mr. Bazoft's life. The comments that we have made have throughout been measured and reasonable. By their action, the Iraqi authorities have blackened the name of Iraq across the world.

Mr. George Robertson: We on this side of the House join the Foreign Secretary in the sense of shock and anger that he has expressed about the execution of Mr. Farzad Bazoft and we join in his condolences to Mr. Bazoft's family.
The whole House of Commons stands united in condemning this act of unspeakable brutality, an act which displayed a ruthless contempt for justice, for humanity and for united world opinion. This is not only a crime against one man who this morning was so callously put to death, but represents a real threat to every other person who may go to Iraq.
It is also right at this time to remember the indefensible gaol sentences passed on Mrs. Daphne Parish and Mr. Ian Richter, and we must continue all efforts to have them freed.
We offer the Government our full support in the action that they are taking, and we welcome the intention of involving our European partners in seeking further ways of putting pressure on Iraq.
Does the Foreign Secretary think that here in Britain he should now ask the Iraqi ambassador immediately to go home, as a clear indication of the disgust of the British people at what has happened? Should not we carefully reconsider the extensive trade credits that we offer Iraq, and cancel all trade missions from this country to Iraq? Today's execution was an act of calculated violence by a bloodstained dictatorship which will delay any chance of the Iraqis' return to the civilised world community.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has handled the matter. We have considered the three specific extra points that he made. He suggested that we should send home the Iraqi ambassador. I do not want to take steps that might lead to the permanent exclusion of our embassy staff from Baghdad. We have more than 2,000 British subjects there and, like the Opposition, we are thinking in particular of Mr. Richter and Mrs. Parish, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
We have already considered the matter of credit. We must take into account that economic measures in which we would not be joined by others will not alter the stance of the Iraqi Government, and might do more harm than good. The hon. Member also mentioned trade missions. Such a mission was due to leave today from the Birmingham chamber of commerce. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has withdrawn support and subsidy from the mission. I understand that the Birmingham chamber of commerce has also withdrawn its support.

Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his measured response to this outrage and the actions of this monstrous regime is exactly right in the circumstances? Will he also accept that, while others may urge that sanctions through trade or a complete break of diplomatic relations might express their justifiable feelings of outrage, such measures would be less effective and might end up doing no harm to Iraq and damaging this country more? Will he work hard with our Community partners to ensure that the combined effort and power of the European community is directed to bringing to bear on the Baghdad regime the lesson that it has offended the civilised rules of humanity and international order?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and to those Foreign Ministers and others, including the Secretary-General of the United Nations and many others, who have intervened to urge clemency in the past few days. I agree with my right hon. Friend's comments. I shall have an opportunity the day after tomorrow at the meeting of EC and Gulf Ministers in Muscat to drive home the point that he made.

Sir David Steel:: We on this Bench fully endorse the Foreign Secretary's sentiments. Would not it be wise to remind ourselves that Mr. Bazoft was a journalist who was in the process of investigating the apparent deaths of hundreds of Iraqi people in an explosion? This secretive and revolting regime has an appalling human rights record towards its own people. In consultation with European partners, will the Foreign Secretary go beyond seeking their condemnation and ask them collectively to consider whether Iraq is suitable as a normal trading partner to which we give credit facilities?

Mr. Hurd: I will certainly discuss the matter with them. In honesty, I do not think that that line of thought is likely to make much progress. The right hon. Gentleman has made an important point. Mr. Bazoft was a journalist. He said in court that he was acting as a journalist and nothing more on the occasion when he was arrested. In the last hours of his life, he repeated that account to the consul-general.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is a duty on each and every hon. Member of the House to express his revulsion at this atrocity? Will he further accept my confident assertion that those from this Parliament attending the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in two weeks' time will wish to express their sentiments in that regard directly to Iraqi parliamentarians?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend: I think that that would be an excellent contribution.

Mr. Jim Sillars: May I join in the expressions of revulsion? Having heard the Iraqi ambassador on the radio earlier today, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to put it clearly on record that any confession extracted by Saddam Hussein's regime will carry no validity anywhere in the world?
Let me also take the right hon. Gentleman up on the question of continued extended credits. Are not they an expression of normal relations between states? Is not it the case that we cannot continue to have normal relations with Iraq under the present circumstances? Should not we withdraw the credits as an expression of this state's particular revulsion?

Mr. Hurd: I have expressed our revulsion, in which every hon. Member shares. But in going on to consider economic measures such as the hon. Gentleman proposes—it is perfectly natural that he should make such a proposal this afternoon—it is also right that the whole House should think through their consequences. Would such economic measures remove the regime? Obviously not. Would they in any way affect its policies? I have to tell the House that in my judgment they would not. Would they do more harm than good to Britain? I think it possible that they would. Those are the considerations that the House must carry in its mind before it judges these matters.

Sir Dennis Walters: Does my right hon. Friend accept the widespread support for the statement that he has made? Will he note that some of us who spend a great deal of time trying to work for better relations between this country and Arab countries share his sense of shock and disappointment? I believe that it is right not to break diplomatic relations, because that would not help British interests or Mrs. Parish, who is in gaol in Iraq. At the same time, we should recognise that Arab countries such as Jordan and Egypt, and the PLO, did their best to prevent this horrid act from taking place.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His comments coming from a long-standing and sincere friend of the Arab world, will carry particular weight. I am certainly grateful to the three Arab leaders whom he mentioned, who certainly did their best to avert this disaster.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Foreign Secretary said, did he not, that soldiers from Iraq—members of the armed forces training here—would be sent home. I understand that it is also normal for policemen to be training at the various academies of the police forces in this country. Will the Foreign Secretary ask the Home Office to see whether policemen are here as

well and ensure that they, too, are sent home, because it is their job to carry out the law that we in the House so strongly oppose?

Mr. Hurd: I shall look into the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary aware that six Conservative Members were in Iraq when Mr. Bazoft was arrested last September and we went to see the deputy Prime Minister of Iraq about the case of Mr. Ian Richter. When the deputy Prime Minister referred during those discussions to a political prisoner in our own gaols, we pointed out that the man in question was in prison for murder. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no deals with Iraq to exchange prisoners, and that this country does not interfere in our criminal justice system?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right. I have unfortunately had occasion to explain this to Iraq off and on for about eight years of my ministerial career. It is certainly true that the Iraqis hope, from time to time, to make such deals. We have had to explain—in various personal cases of great difficulty, in which the Government and the whole House felt for the people in prison in Iraq—that we are not going to trade our justice in that way.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very heavy day ahead of us. I will call two more hon. Members from each side; then we must move on to business questions.

Dr. David Owen: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this callous and brutal act tramples on the values of a free and international press and reminds us that Iraq has used gas not only against its own citizens but against Iran and that it continues to manufacture gas? Should not it now be on the conscience of the world to take action on that country's dismal record on the whole question of poisonous gas?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman knows about poisonous gas and about human rights, and he will know that we have been among the foremost in urging precisely that.

Mr. Michael Latham: Although the House will wish to accept the judgment of my right hon. Friend about the action he has taken, will he confirm that the return of our ambassador to this country could be prolonged? If we are not going to take action to remove any Iraqi staff from this country, no normal relations should take place with them until the people concerned are released from their country.

Mr. Hurd: We shall judge the length of time that it would be sensible to keep Her Majesty's ambassador here. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's main point.

Mr. George Galloway: The Iraqi regime has besmirched the name of its people by the judicial murder this morning—as any state which commits judicial murder does. Will the Secretary of State accept that the House in general welcomes the cautious approach that he has taken in response——

Mr. Tony Banks: No.

Mr. Galloway: My hon. Friend says no, but the truth is that caution has been absent from much of the rhetoric since last week, and in my view that has been extremely damaging. People who know that part of the world have listened with a sense of increasing gloom to the gunboats being started up and the sabres dusted down in certain quarters. That is entirely counter-productive, and a man has paid for it with his life.

Mr. Hurd: I hope that the hon. Member will agree that what has been said, not just by Ministers but by hon. Members on both sides of the House, on the subject on several occasions during the past week, has been measured. Anything less would have fallen well below what was required of the subject we were discussing.

Mr. Tony Banks: What about the morality?

Mr. Hurd: Neither the Government nor the Opposition are responsible for what appears in parts of the media, and I am not in a position to comment on that. I think that our stance, and what hon. Members have said, was the least that could have been expected upon such occasions, and I do not think that we have anything to regret. I have tried to use measured words, which I think express the deep disgust that we all feel.

Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his measured and balanced statement this afternoon will be widely welcomed? While it is obviously essential that that barbaric act should be condemned in the strongest possible terms, we also have to think of the interests of Ian Richter, Daphne Parish and the 2,000 Britons who work in Baghdad. Can my right hon. Friend deny the rumours that are apparently being put about that Mr. Bazoft was a member of special branch?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point. I welcome the opportunity to comment on the rumours that are circulating. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that Mr. Bazoft telephoned the Metropolitan police on four occasions—once in 1987, twice in 1988 and once last year—as a member of the public offering information on subjects that were unconnected with Iraq. He had no contact with special branch, and the police did not consider the information he gave was worth pursuing but his calls were logged in accordance with routine procedure. There were no further contacts, and there were no further meetings. None of that seems relevant to this morning's tragedy.

Business of the House

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Tim Renton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.

MONDAY I9 MARCH—Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill.

Motion on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order.

TUESDAY 20 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement. European Community documents relevant to the Budget debate will be shown in the Official Report.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

WEDNESDAY 21 MARCH AND THURSDAY 22 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.

FRIDAY 23 MARCH—Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 26 MARCH—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget statement.

Tuesday 20 March: Relevant European Community documents


(a) 9487/89
Annual Economic Report 1989–90


(b) Unnumbered
Final version of Annual Economic Report as adopted by the Council

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee


(a) HC 15-xxxviii (1988–89), para 2


(b) HC 11-ix ( 1989–90), para 2

Dr. John Cunningham: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet had time to reach a conclusion about the requests from all parties in the House for a debate on the Harrods-House of Fraser scandal? Is not it inadequate to leave the matter as it was left—dealt with in a brief statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who seemed to dismiss this disgraceful episode in an offhand and inadequate manner?
Is not it in the interests of everyone in Parliament, including the Government, and of the reputation of industry and our financial institutions, that the matter should be properly discussed and debated in Parliament? I emphasise that requests for a debate came from hon. Members in all parts of the House. The Government have had time to consider the matter. I hope that we can have an early and positive response so that the House can hold an essential debate.
Why are the Government delaying debates on important poll tax orders? Has the Patronage Secretary seen the petition on the Order Paper from the impeccably Conservative Berkshire county council drawing attention to the unfair treatment of Tory boroughs such as Wandsworth and Westminster by the Secretary of State for the Environment? Since even Tory Berkshire county council is now calling for the Government's revenue support grant decisions to be reconsidered, and since the Prime Minister remains—almost alone, but nevertheless remains—convinced that the poll tax is a good idea, why are the Government so reluctant to allow time to debate those matters?

Mr. Renton: There is no question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry being, as the hon. Gentleman put it, offhand in his attitude towards the House of Fraser report. He made a statement and answered questions about it last week in the House.


Hon. Members will be aware that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is looking into the Department's investigative powers under the Companies Act 1989 and the Financial Services Act 1986. My right hon. Friend will be submitting an additional memorandum to the Committee on the merger policy and company law issues arising from the House of Fraser report.
I cannot hold out the prospect of a debate in the immediate future, although there will be debates throughout next week on the Budget statement. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter is being discussed through the usual channels.
On the question of the community charge, it is correct that the House has had a number of opportunities in recent weeks to debate matters relating to it. I cannot promise a specific date, but I shall certainly pass on the views that the shadow Leader of the House has expressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. To add a rider, I hope that, during that debate, we shall have an opportunity to debate the position of the 31 Labour Members who have made plain their opposition to paying the community charge and who are thus clearly committing themselves to illegality.
I see that one of those Members, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), has now resigned the Labour Whip. I wonder when the other 30 will do so, and whether, if they do not, the shadow Leader of the Opposition will put his foot where his mouth is and withdraw the Whip from those 30 Labour Members of Parliament.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the business immediately after this is guillotined and that it is to be followed by opposed private business, with further business after that. I ask hon. Members please to ask one question. If they could hold their questions until next week, that would be even better.

Mr Graham Riddick: When are we likely to have a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment on which local authorities will be community charge-capped? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that local council budgets will, on average, increase this year by well over 30 per cent? Is it not clear that some local councils, particularly Labour councils, are taking the opportunity of the changeover to the new system of local government finance to set unnecessarily high community charge levels? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must cap those authorities?

Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is becoming increasingly clear that it costs a lot more to live in a Labour-controlled local authority than in a Conservative-controlled local authority. Labour counties are setting an average precept that is £82 above the standard spending assessment, as compared with £26 in Conservative counties. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made it clear that we shall not hesitate to cap authorities that insist on budgeting excessively, and that we shall force them to cut their spending plans.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Next week?

Mr. Renton: No, it will not be next week. I cannot speculate on the operation or timetable of any capping scheme, but it is being considered carefully by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. James Wallace: The Patronage Secretary is no doubt aware of the concern in the highlands and islands of Scotland about the apparent withdrawal of European regional development fund funding, following the announcement this week. Does he agree that the claim and counter-claim between the Secretary of State for Scotland and Commissioner Millan is doing nothing to resolve that confusion or to dispel the concern? Will the Secretary of State for Scotland come to the House next week and make a statement to clarify the situation and to say what the Government are doing to ensure that important regional development funding comes to the highlands and islands after 1992?

Mr. Renton: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Because of the pressure of business next week, I cannot promise that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be in the House to make the statement next week, but I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's views to him.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend initiate an investigation so that some explanation can be given of how an hon. Member of this House, together with others, can hold a press conference in this House urging a breach of a law that was passed by this House? The public might think that this is a madhouse, with respect.

Mr. Renton: And indeed, as my hon. Friend might have said, the hon. Member in question, who is unfortunately no longer in the Chamber, was photographed with members of the Militant anti-community charge protesters. That was disgraceful—[HON. MEMBERS: "Poll tax."] The anti-community charge protesters. That was a disgraceful abuse of the premises of this House. I hope that the hon. Member in question will speak for himself in any forthcoming debate.

Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Patronage Secretary had a chance to read Professor Grieve's report on homelessness? Is he aware that its indentification of the cause of homelessness is the Government's withdrawal of massive funds from local authorities, thus preventing them from building any homes? Is he aware that it is a scandal that in London——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware of it, but is the question about business next week?

Mr. Banks: Precisely. I want to know whether the Patronage Secretary is aware of the crisis of homelessness in London and elsewhere and whether we shall have an urgent debate on homelessness, because the country demands to know what the Government are going to do about this obscenity.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has a great capacity for getting very excited. He will know very well that we have recently made a grant of £1 million to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux specifically to look into the growth of homelessness. The hon. Gentleman and I might find common cause in believing


that it is the break-up of families that leads most of all to the increase in homelessness. That is a worrying matter in today's society.

Sir John Stanley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the debate on 18 January on the previous community charge report, at column 427, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said specifically that there would be a debate on the transitional relief scheme in January? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House why there was no debate in January or in February? Will he give a clear undertaking that this extremely important report, in which the assumptions for the community charge are grossly underestimated, at the expense of our constituents, will be debated?

Mr. Renton: I think that my right hon. Friend may be incorrect in saying that the specific commitment was to a debate in January. However, I am aware of the question of a debate on transitional relief. I cannot promise a specific date, but I shall pass on my right hon. Friend's concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who will bear them very much in mind.

Mr. William Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the decision in the Dublin Supreme Court on 1 March, which demanded that there was a "legal imperative" on the Dublin Government always to seek a united Ireland? In the light of that, can we have an early debate, as the consequences of that judgment showed through in the judgment on extradition this week?
If we had that early debate, Unionist Members could explain to the House and to the Government exactly what the consequences of those judgments are, especially since last night, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) made it very clear that he did not have the slightest idea what the consequences were.

Mr. Renton: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but he is being somewhat unjust to my hon. Friend and a little precipitate, since last night's Adjournment debate dealt specifically with that important constitutional case.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on local government planning procedures, so that I can bring before the House the new practice of Labour-controlled Ealing council of charging people £10 a sheet for information relating to planning applications, and the fact that a constituent of mine had to pay £142·50 for copies of planning applications relating to the conversion of one small house in Northolt? That should be brought before the House, since corruption appears to be involved.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend is always extremely assiduous in bringing to the House his concerns about his constituency and, most particularly, about the extravagances of Ealing council. I hope that his council will take careful note of the remarks that he has just made.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: As the appalling and murderous activities of the Isreaeli forces continue in the occupied Arab territories, when will the House be able

to debate that specific issue without having to try to pursue it, submerged as it usually is, in the broader range of a general foreign affairs debate?

Mr. Renton: I know well, from the days when I was a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Gentleman's concern about all middle eastern issues, particularly the Palestinian-Israeli issue. There have been a number of foreign affairs debates in the House recently, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's points, particularly on the Palestinian issue.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the difficulties that we faced on Tuesday night about residential homes for elderly people underline the great problem that Britain faces of an aging population—problems which will extend to the end of the century and into the next one? As many difficult points need to be addressed, would not it be to the great advantage of the House to have a debate in the not-too-far distant future on how Britain will cope with a developing aging population?

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend is right. That is a matter of great concern and the problem will get worse in the decade ahead. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made it clear during the debate on Tuesday night that he recognised the concerns that had been expressed, for example, on income support for those in residential homes, and said that he would make a thorough assessment of the position and look carefully at the levels and structure of income support limits for future upratings. My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to raise such matters in the forthcoming debates on Report and Third Reading of the Social Security Bill.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Patronage Secretary aware that I admire his and the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for insisting that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Members take action against those of our colleagues who intend to break the law? In view of that enthusiasm, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Prime Minister to make a statement next week explaining to the House what action she intends to take against those of her hon. Friends who are reported to have broken the law—or does that principle apply only to Opposition Members?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman's question is not clear. We have recently had a debate about the position of hon. Members in relation to the Register of Members' Interests. I am not otherwise aware of any hon Members to whom the hon. Gentleman might be referring.

Mr. Paul Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a prayer has been tabled by myself and others against the substantial increase in the cost of firearms licences? Will my right hon. Friend find time in the not-too-distant future to debate that matter?

Mr. Renton: I note my hon. Friend's remarks, and I know of his interest in the subject. There was new legislation on firearms last year. The question whether there should be a debate on these matters is perhaps best left to a discussion through the usual channels, but I shall bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind.

Mr. Ron Brown: Since a constituent of mine, Mr. Roger Randall, is having grave difficulty in bringing in his wife from Manila, will the right hon. Gentleman have this matter investigated, or can we have an early debate about his circumstances and those of many people who suffer from the racist attitude that is prevalent in the Government and many embassies?

Mr. Renton: I wholly disagree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which I find insulting. Having been a Minister with responsibility for immigration at the Home Office for two and a half years, I know full well how careful are the Home Office and the immigration department, which will also resent the hon. Gentleman's remarks, to see that the immigration controls that they operate are free and fair and not racist.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he should discuss the case of his constituent who wishes to bring in his wife from Manila with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, or with the immigration and nationality department at Croydon. I hope that he will, on second thoughts, withdraw his divisive remarks.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: The introduction of the community charge has thrown up one anomaly for married couples. Will my right hon. Friend give time as soon as possible to a debate on the fact that, in the year in which independent taxation for married women is introduced, married women upon whom the community charge is levied as individuals do not qualify for capital disregard for rebate purposes? It is logical, fair and just that they should so qualify. Could we have a debate as soon as possible, especially as this would be of interest to so many pensioner couples who save for their retirement?

Mr. Renton: I note the important point raised by my hon. Friend. Even if there is not soon time for a specific debate on that subject, she could find an opportunity to raise it when the House debates the Budget statement next week.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Could we have a statement next week on progress in the sale of the skill centres? No doubt the Chief Whip will recall that, when a statement was made, the House was told that the valuable land on which many of the skill centres stand would be subject to leasing arrangements. Is the Chief Whip aware that these will now be given to Astra Training Services Ltd. a curious company which seems to be run by civil servants. Is it not time that the Government came clean to the House and exposed the nefarious arrangement by which valuable assets are being given away to the private sector?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman often sees nefarious arrangements where other people see perfectly ordinary and straightforward arrangements. I shall pass on his comments to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and the hon. Gentleman might find an opportunity to raise this matter in an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Millions of people are concerned about animal welfare. Because of the recent, almost weekly, reports about the despicable

treatment of captive wild animals by money-grubbing organisations such as Chipperfield, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on animal welfare?

Mr. Renton: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend. Animal welfare rightly touches the hearts of all of us. I cannot promise a debate next week, but I shall see that my hon. Friend's remarks are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The Patronage Secretary will have heard the question asked earlier this afternoon about early retirement. He may recognise that there is a growing volume of evidence in favour of early retirement. Can we have a debate on that subject soon, and will the right hon. Gentleman invite the Prime Minister to attend, so that she might take the advice that she might be given on that occasion?

Mr. Renton: I had the feeling that the hon. Gentleman was planning to take early retirement, either enforced or otherwise, at the next general election. We shall see whether there are any opportunities. If he wishes to discuss his case, perhaps he should raise the matter in an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Toby Jessel: On the Budget statement, is it within our terms of reference to discuss the effect on the economy of the excellent weather this year, which has enabled people to turn down their heating and save on their heating costs, thereby reducing their cost of living, but which cannot be measured within the cost of living index, thereby exalting the real cost of living?

Mr. Renton: Much as I should like to claim credit for warm weather as part of Conservative policy, I am riot wholly certain that Opposition Members would allow me to do so. I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his inventive and ingenious mind, will find a suitable opportunity to raise the matter, perhaps on the day devoted to the economy during the Budget debate.

Mr. David Winnick: In view of the revulsion felt in the United Kingdom, which was expressed on both sides of the House during the exchanges over the killing in Iraq, would the Patronage Secretary arrange as soon as possible another statement to update us next week on what action will be taken by Britain? Is he aware that, in questioning on any such statement, many of us would wish to dispute the misguided view that has been advanced by one or two hon. Members, again on both sides of the House, that there was misrepresentation? We believe that the spotlight that the British media turned on the repression and denial of human rights in Iraq was fully justified. The full responsibility for the murder which has taken place is with the hangman in Baghdad.

Mr. Renton: Of course I share—every Member of the House will share—the hon. Gentleman's feeling of revulsion at the execution. I point out to him that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just made a statement on the matter. I think that the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that one of our prime concerns now must be the welfare, and, one hopes, the eventual release, of the British people who are still in captivity in Iraq, particularly Ian Richter and Mrs. Parish. That is an aspect which my right hon. Friend must keep in mind before he comes to the House again to make a statement.

Mr. Bill Walker: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motions 696 and 715? Can we have an early opportunity to debate these motions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that only one of those motions may be printed in Hansard.

Mr. Walker: May we have an opportunity to debate early-day motion 696 at an early date?
That this House notes that the Right honourable Member for Islwyn may have missed more than one boat on Friday 9th March, when his party in Scotland at their conference in Dunoon failed to accept his leadership and voted to support motions on proportional representation and on unilateral disarmament; and further notes this North-South divide is made worse by the Scottish Labour Party proposals for the roof tax and the rating of farm buildings, farmland and woodland, and the compulsory purchase of estates and holiday homes, all of which have not as yet been embraced by the Labour Party in England.
The motion concerns
roof tax and the rating of farm buildings, farmland and woodland, and the compulsory purchase of estates and holiday homes
in Scotland. These are measures which apply to Scotland only, thus creating a north-south divide. The proposals have not yet been embraced by the Labour party in England. It is important that we Scots have an early opportunity to debate measures that are designed to affect only Scotland.

Mr. Renton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It would be useful if my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, when he is back from his important visit abroad, could find time for such a debate. It would be useful if the debate embraced roof tax in Scotland and the Scottish Labour party's attitude to defence, given that it has voted to continue unilateral disarmament, which is clearly an embarrassment to the Labour leadership. It shows that its new multilateral policy, especially in Scotland, is only, dare one say, sporran deep.

Mr. Harry Cohen: As the Government fiddled the poll tax grant in favour of Westminster and Wandsworth for crude party-political purposes and forced residents in boroughs such as the one in my constituency, Waltham Forest, to subsidise Tory Wandsworth, can we have an early debate on the matter so that I can ask for our money back?

Mr. Renton: I notice that the hon. Gentleman's charge in Leyton has been fixed at £438, which seems to be very high. That is doubtless due to Labour extravagance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, as an active representative of his constituents, will do all that he can to persuade the Labour council to reduce the charge in future years by implementing more prudent spending policies.

Mr. James Cran: Could my right hon. Friend find some time to discuss the Baxter report, dealing with the levels of radiation to which the work force is exposed in non-nuclear industries, which is the important feature? The report suggests that the present permitted levels are far too high. The House has a long and honourable record of considering health and safety matters that apply to the work force. A debate on the report would be yet another opportunity to demonstrate exactly that.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I must say to him also, not next week. However, I shall do my best to ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is well aware of his remarks.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Patronage Secretary consider the case for an early debate on the crisis in the Scottish fishing industry? When I tackled the Leader of the House on this subject two weeks ago, he seemed to hold out the prospect of such a debate. However, since then, via the vehicle of a written answer, the Government have announced measures that intensify the crisis facing Scottish fishermen and fish processors. Those processing workers are among the lowest paid industrial workers in the country. When will we have a debate to discuss the measures that are needed to stabilise that vital industry in its hour of need?

Mr. Renton: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I remember that he did indeed raise this matter at business questions two weeks ago. I understand that fishermen are facing a difficult year, but claims of a crisis in the fishing industry are not supported by the facts. Fishermen are benefiting from rising prices, which have helped to offset reduced catches. However, I shall, of course bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give a more positive and serious response to the question asked earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), relating to the almost fraudulent inadequacy of the transitional relief scheme for the community charge? It really is inadequate. A debate should be held in the House before the community charge is implemented.
I refer especially to my constituency of Macclesfield, which is a well-run Conservative authority, but which is having to return a community charge of £428, as against Wandsworth's charge of just £148. That is dishonest and wrong to my constituents.

Mr. Renton: I am sure that my hon. Friend is using his best endeavours to ensure that the local authority in his constituency is doing its utmost to bring down the level of its expenditure——

Mr. Winterton: It has done.

Mr. Renton: —and the level of revenue raising that it is planning. The question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) related specifically to the timing of a debate on transitional relief. As I said to him, and I repeat to my hon. Friend, I cannot promise a specific debate, but I shall certainly pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who I am sure will try to accommodate my right hon. and hon. Friends at an early opportunity.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Patronage Secretary make urgent arrangements for a debate on Members' Interests, relating especially to members of Select Committees? I make that request following yesterday's request from the Select Committee on Defence to the Select Committee on Members' interests, asking for that Committee to consider the rules, practices and


conventions relating to members of Select Committees, including the Chairs of Select Committees, who hold interests that are relevant to the terms of reference of those Committees. Such a debate would be extremely helpful and would—I hope—dispel the rumours that are circulating in the House, that at least three Chairs of Select Committees hold such interests.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House and knows the procedures to be followed on these matters. If he has points to make or thoughts to be followed, he should direct them to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, where I am sure they will be carefully looked at in accordance with the proper procedure.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Patronage Secretary aware that, when we have a debate on the poll tax and the transitional provisions, as requested by his right hon. and hon. Friends, it will become increasingly apparent that, if all the local authorities in Britain, including Derbyshire, Cheshire and all the rest, received the same kind of relief—82p in the pound—that Wandsworth has received, every single local authority in Britain would have a poll tax of less than £200 per head? [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."]—If we got 82p in the pound in Derbyshire, as opposed to the 38p——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Those are arguments that might be made if we had such a debate.

Mr. Skinner: Yes. It is a very important argument——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Gentleman hear what I said about the pressure on time today?

Mr. Skinner: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Will he please ask a question about the business for next week?

Mr. Skinner: So will the Patronage Secretary bear in mind that those figures would show that every local authority in Britain would have a poll tax of less than £200? If it is right for Wandsworth and for Lady Porter's Westminster, it should be right for the rest of the local authorities.

Mr. Renton: The community charge in the area that the hon. Gentleman represents shows once again the extravagance of Labour councils. Bolsover, I see, has a community charge of £353; North-East Derbyshire has one of £420. This proves once again that those who live in Labour authorities will find themselves paying a lot more than those who live in Conservative authorities.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Patronage Secretary noted the repeated requests that I have made for a debate on wages in the Refreshment Department in the House of Commons? Is he aware that, because of the low wages being paid by Parliament to its own employees in that Department, there are now a large number of vacancies? Many people will not work here because they can earn far more working in other establishments in London. What does the Patronage Secretary think about these matters? Does he show the same indifference as the Leader of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has little to do with business questions; the hon. Gentleman must ask for a debate next week.

Mr. Renton: I did indeed listen to the hon. Gentleman raise this matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House last week. He then received a very full answer from my right hon. and learned Friend, and I do not think that there is anything that I can add to what the hon. Member has already been told.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The standard spending assessment for North-East Derbyshire, for the district alone, is 17p in the pound. That is why the figure is so high, as mentioned by the Patronage Secretary. Can we have a debate on the poll tax's wider implications, the democratic and constitutional implications of the operation of the poll tax, when, for instance, masses of people are missing from electoral registers—in England, 90,000 or so since the last register, and masses of people in the major cities in Scotland?
The biggest constitutional scandal that we face in this country concerns what is happening to the electoral register and the manipulations taking place in the country. In Finchley, the franchise is being fiddled by 5 per cent. of the people being missing from the electoral register.

Mr. Renton: I must point out to the hon. Member that I do not think that the words "democratic and constitutional" should play any part in his remarks to the House. He is a member of the non-payment compaign against the community charge; therefore, he is encouraging people to take both non-democratic and non-constitutional action. I think that he should reverse that stance before he addresses such remarks to the House.

Mr. Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not like what was said, but I will take points of order in a minute.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving early time for a debate on a vicious attack on my agent, Joanna Trapman, who is recovering from a major operation? She was assualted in our constituency offices by 60 left-wing activists. Could we also consider, in the course of a debate, the encouragement that those activists are getting from 30 Opposition Members?

Mr. Renton: The whole House will sympathise, and I am very sorry to hear what my hon. Friend says. I hope that he will carry the best wishes of the House to his agent and that she will recover very quickly from the attack.

Sir Peter Emergy: May I ask my right hon. Friend to nudge the memory of the Leader of the House next week on the assurance that he has given about a debate on European legislation and the Select Committee on Procedure's report on dealing with legislation? This is a matter of considerable importance to the House. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of wish to have a debate and I urge that, if it is not to be next week, we may have assurances next week that it will be soon after Easter.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. and learned Friend, who is very assiduous in these matters, will no doubt read Hansard very soon after returning from representing Her Majesty the Queen at presidential inaugurations in both Brazil and Chile. He is very concerned to improve procedures in the House for the scrutiny of European legislation, as my hon. Friend knows, and he will read my hon. Friend's comments with great care.

Points of Order

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Patronage Secretary deliberately attacked me in response to the question that I asked, claiming that I was part of some mass non-payment campaign advocating that people should not pay. That is not my position. I believe that the measures within the legislation are draconian and would present great problems to people who did not pay. I will not pay, on exactly the grounds presented about the democratic and constitutional nature of the measure. As an elected representative of the people, I believe that I have a moral duty to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker: That is certainly not a point of order.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: This is exactly what happens when we get non-points of order of that kind.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. Gentleman like to advise Government Members which labour laws we should ignore?

Sir John Stanley: In response to my business question to the Patronage Secretary, in which I stated that Hansard contained a clear commitment by the Secretary of State for the Environment that there would be an early debate on the transitional relief scheme audit, the Patronage Secretary said that I might have misunderstood my right hon. Friend. On 18 January, my right hon. Friend said:
It will not be debated until we consider the transitional relief scheme orders later this month."—[Official Report, 18 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 427]
If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wishes to change his position on that undertaking about a debate, is it not the well-established practice that he should forthwith come to the House and make a statement clarifying his position?

Mr. Speaker: I think that is a matter for the Patronage Secretary to report to the Leader of the House.

BILL PRESENTED

TERM AND QUARTER DAYS (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Bill Walker presented a Bill to regulate, in relation to Scotland, the dates of Whitsunday, Martinmas, Candlemas and Lammas; and for connected purposes: And the same was read a First time and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Transport (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day — National Health Service and Community Care Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before calling the Minister, I remind the House that this is a three-hour debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill stands for everything that the Labour party cannot stand. It stands for choice for patients. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) agrees with me on both points.

Mr. John Maxton: No.

Mr. Forsyth: It stands for greater freedom, flexibility and responsibility for general practitioners and for individual hospitals. It stands for a shift away from centralisation and bureaucracy in the NHS—the centralisation and bureaucracy with which the Labour party is so closely identified when in government and in opposition. It stands, too, for a partnership between the public sector, the private sector and the voluntary organisations for strengthened management and accountability and for standards and quality of care. The Government have set out to build a patients' charter, and this Bill sees us well on the way to achieving that.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) had nothing constructive to say on the future direction and organisation of the Health Service. They relied on a campaign fostering misinformation, suspicion and anxiety among patients, instead of putting forward constructive arguments and an alternative proposal. Their entire campaign was based on myths. The first of these myths was that indicative budgets would mean that the patients would not get the drugs that they needed. I see that at least one hon. Gentleman still subscribes to that ridiculous view.
Last year, in the nine months between the publication of the White Paper in January and the meeting of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State with the BMA, we saw in general practitioners' surgeries up and down the country irresponsible leaflets from the BMA and others, and we heard speeches from Labour Members arguing that patients would not be able to get the drugs that they needed. To the credit of the BMA, at a meeting with my right hon. Friend on 27 September it said that it now accepted that, in fact, patients would be able to get the medicines that they required. So far as I am aware, that is not the view of the Opposition. I hope that they will make it clear today that the Labour party now accepts that patients will be able to get the drugs they desire as a result of indicative budgets being introduced.

Mr. James Couchman: A fair amount of misconception arose because of the reference in the White Paper to
placing downward pressure on expenditure on drugs".


Might it not have been better to have said, "downward pressure on the growth of expenditure on drugs"?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend makes his own point. He must be aware that, for example, through prescribing generic equivalents it is possible to bring downward pressure on expenditure without affecting the quality of patient care.

Ms. Harriet Harman: We would accept the Minister's assurance that patients will not lose because of cash-limited drug budgets if he had accepted our new clause, which merely sought to write into the Bill the guarantee that he is trying to give us. Guarantees given in the House are worth nothing; they need to be written into legislation. If the Minister means what he says, why did he call on his hon. Friends to vote down our amendment?

Mr. Forsyth: In Committee I pressed the hon. Lady to say whether she supported the existing system for controlling GP prescribing. She did not seem to recognise that there is in place a system based on peer review and that there are appropriate penalties for doctors who overprescribe. She should recognise that there is nothing different about indicative budgets. If the hon. Lady is still arguing that there is a risk to patients, she is out of line not only with this side of the House but with the BMA and with doctors themselves, and is becoming increasingly isolated as she peddles these myths.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have here a copy of a letter, dated 27 February, which the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) sent to all local medical committees. First, I question whether it was in order because it was a circulated letter and I do not think that the rules of the House allow circulated letters to be printed on House of Commons notepaper—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are always keen to be in order, yet we know how often they misuse the facilities of the House. The first thing the hon. Lady said in her letter to medical committees was:
GPs' drug budgets will be cash limited.

Mr. John Battle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If a hon. Member feels that another hon. Member has infringed the rules of the House in the way that he has used the stationery, there is a proper procedure for that to be reported. That has not been undertaken. Therefore, is it in order for the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) to castigate my hon. Friend?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether it is alleged that this was an individual letter or a circular. If there has been an infringement of the rules, it is a matter for the Services Committee.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that I referred the matter to you on a previous occasion, when the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) did precisely that. It is a circular letter and I shall be happy to refer the matter to the Select Committee on Privileges.

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is right to focus attention on the arguments of the Opposition. Everyone, including the BMA, accepts that indicative budgets will not result in patients not being able to get the drugs which they require.

Mr. Allen McKay: rose——

Mr. Forsyth: I am not giving way. I have already given way generously on that point.
The next myth that has been peddled by Opposition Members is that GPs who become fund holders will run out of money and will turn away expensive patients. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Peckham smiles and takes pleasure repeating it. That myth has caused needless anxiety to thousands of patients and elderly people who are in great distress. It is totally without foundation. It was made clear in Committee that GPs who become fund holders will have made available to them funds to take account of the nature of their patients and of their past expenditure.
If GPs exceed their budgets, patient care will not be threatened or diminished. I hope that the hon. Member for Peckham will now acknowledge that. As became clear in Committee, the worst that could happen to a fund holder who had exceeded his budget would be that he could no longer be a fund holder. He would then revert to the status quo.

Ms. Harman: The Minister knows that Opposition Members are worried about cash limits on GP budget holding because they fear that patients will not necessarily get the treatment, drugs and the tests that they need. The doctor will not just be thinking about patients and their clinical needs; he will be looking over his shoulder at his budget. If the Minister wants us to accept the guarantee that he has given in the House, why did Conservative Members speak and vote against our new clause, which would have added that guarantee to the Bill?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady continues to repeat her accusation, despite the clear evidence of the facts. The facts are that a GP's budget will be determined by his past expenditure and the profile of his patients. If a OP exceeds his budget, patient care will not in any way be threatened or diminished. The hon. Lady also argued that no GP was interested in the scheme, and that it was a crackpot scheme that had been invented by people who were out of touch—[Interruption.]

Mr. Robin Cook: rose——

Mr. Forsyth: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I will happily give way to the hon. Lady. who can reject—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. For the moment the Minister has the floor.

Mr. Forsyth: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I will give way to the hon. Lady when I have made my point, and she can reject the point when she knows what it is. I can tell by the way that the hon. Member for Livingston is jumping up and down that we are beginning to draw blood.
The hon. Gentleman is just as guilty. He has associated himself with the view that the proposals in the White Paper are not supported by the medical profession, and both he and the hon. Lady have made speech after speech saying that the Government are out of touch with the profession. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State answered a parliamentary question on the subject yesterday. His answer showed that almost 900 GP


practices are impressed enough with the scheme to want to take matters further and to ensure that their patients have the possible benefits from the scheme.

Ms. Harman: The position remains that there is no support among GPs for the concept of fund-holding practices. I accept the Secretary of State's assertion that many GPs have put their names forward to become fund holders. However, that is because they are choosing between the lesser of two evils. They regard fund holding as the only way to escape from the restrictions on their right to referral, which will clamp down on them if they do not become fund holders.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady refutes one myth by embarking on the next. She accepts that nearly 900 GPs are queueing up—even before the Bill has been enacted—to become fund holders or budget holders. They are doing so because they recognise the benefits for their patients and the opportunities for their practices. The hon. Member for Livingston completely misread the demand for the proposals, and also for self-governing hospitals.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that GPs who have shown an interest have come forward voluntarily—that is certainly the case in my constituency—because they believe that what is proposed is in the best interests of their patients and their practices?

Mr. Forsyth: That is right, and in my hon. Friend's constituency there is a proposal from a hospital to become an NHS trust. We now have twice as many proposals in Scotland as the target we set when the White Paper was published.

Mr. Allen McKay: Although the Minister talks about the number of GPs who are in favour of the scheme, is he aware that GPs are queueing up in my area to throw money in the till to take the Secretary of State to court to prevent him from implementing these proposals?

Mr. Forsyth: GPs who put their money in that direction, because they believed that my right hon. and learned Friend was acting improperly, were not only proved wrong in that respect, because they lost their action, but have throughout been proved wrong in their opposition to our proposals.
The third myth that we had in Committee from the hon. Member for Peckham and her hon. Friends was that GPs would no longer be able to send patients to hospitals which were, in their judgment, required to meet those patients' clinical needs. In trying to rescue her position on the previous myth, the hon. Member for Peckham repeated the third myth about GPs not being able to send patients where they thought they should be treated.
That assertion is completely and utterly untrue. We made the position clear in Committee on many occasions, as we have throughout the period since the White Paper was published. In view of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Lady will now withdraw from the position that she has taken all along. General practitioners will be able to send their patients to the hospitals where they believe that their clinical requirements require them to be sent. I say that without qualification. That has been made clear throughout our debates on the Bill and it is wholly

irresponsible of the hon. Member for Peckham to continue to go about the country repeating statements that are, frankly, not true.

Ms. Harman: If the Minister would have us accept that patients and their GPs will retain the choice that they now have—to decide where patients should be referred in the patients' best clinical interests—why did the Government refuse to accept our amendment which would have written into the Bill a provision saying that, irrespective of the NHS contract system, patients may go where they and their GPs choose, rather than on the basis of some contract based on some previous pattern of referral?

Mr. Forsyth: I hope that people throughout the country are listening to what the hon. Lady is saying because on three major issues—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—about which she and her party have caused anxiety throughout the country, the only justification that she offers for her position, in the face of the assurances that she has been given, is to say, in effect, "If that is the case, why did you not accept our new clause?" That new clause was not needed as part of the Bill and it was no excuse for the campaign that the hon. Lady has waged throughout the country.

Ms. Harman: Now answer my question.

Mr. Forsyth: My answer is that the Opposition new clause was not necessary. It would not have been desirable to write on the face of the Bill the rules for referral when those rules should clearly be left to the judgment of medical practitioners according to their individual patients' needs.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forsyth: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister says that there is no need to write the assurance that he is giving into the Bill because referrals will be decided locally in the process of negotiation. How on earth can the Minister expect the House to accept his assurance that any GP will be allowed to refer any patient to any hospital of his choice when he just said that that can be done only subject to local negotiation in relation to local rules?

Mr. Forsyth: I credit the hon. Gentleman with some understanding of the Government's proposals. He knows well that a GP's referrals will be based on a contract which will be negotiated either by the GP himself, where he is a budget holder, or by the health board. He also knows that if a GP wished to send a patient to a hospital where there was no contract, he would be able to do so if it was an emergency case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—in the absence of a contract. If it was not an emergency case, there would be time to negotiate a contract.
The key issue is whether the GP would be able to send the patient to the hospital of his choice, and the answer is yes. It is totally irresponsible of the hon. Member for Livingston to go round the country telling people that that is not the case when it is.

Mr. Cook: The Minister did not answer my question simply by saying that the answer was no. Consider two cases, first that of a patient who wishes to go to a particular hospital where his fund-holding GP has not placed a


contract and where that GP is not prepared, and does not have the money in his budget, to place a contract. How does that patient get into that hospital?
Consider, secondly, the many GPs—still a wide majority who have not applied for fund-holding practice budgets—whose district health authorities have not negotiated contracts for the hospitals to which they wish to refer their patients. There may be time, with a non-emergency cases, to take that step. But what do they do if the district health authority says, "No, thank you very much, but we have spent our allocation for the year and we do not propose to negotiate a fresh contract. You will have to send your patient to a hospital where we have placed a contract"? What happens to freedom of choice then?

Mr. Forsyth: Freedom of choice continues to be exercised by the GP. The hon. Gentleman knows well that a contingency fund is made available to meet exactly the example of his second case. In his first example, he was asking not about doctor choice but about patient choice. The key point is that where a doctor believes that a patient should be referred to a hospital, wherever it is in the United Kingdom, whether or not a contract exists, arrangements can be made for that choice to be exercised and for the patient's needs to be met.

Ms. Harman: The Minister will live to regret saying that.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady says that I shall live to regret that, as though I had just annunciated some new doctrine. My right hon. and learned Friend has been saying it all over the country for months. The fact that we arrive at the Third Reading of the Bill and a Labour Front-Bench spokesperson is still learning that is indicative of the poverty of opposition that we have enjoyed during the passage of the measure.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: rose——

Mr. Forsyth: The argument of hon. Members for Peckham and for Livingston that GPs would not refer patients to where they thought were the best hospitals for them is an insult to the medical profession. Not only are GPs under a moral obligation to do what is best for their patients; they are under an ethical and legal obligation to do so, and it is wrong to suggest otherwise.
We have heard a number of other myths from the Opposition. We had the myth that self-governing hospitals or NHS trusts would withdraw key services. The hon. Member for Peckham has been telling people all over the country that they will no longer be able to get maternity services—that self-governing hospitals will not wish to run such services because they would not be profitable.
The hon. Lady knows well, after more than 109 hours in Committee, that the NHS trusts will operate under contract to the health boards or health authorities, that those authorities in those contracts will specify the range and quality of service to be provided and that the hospitals will need to provide those services if they are to see their resources.
It is totally irresponsible of Opposition spokespersons to go round peddling such myths, saying that people will lose local services, when the effect of NHS trusts will be that the quality of services will be defined for the first time and hospitals will be held to account for delivering them.

Ms. Harman: rose——

Mr. Forsyth: I have been very generous.

Ms. Harman: It is ludicrous for the hon. Gentleman to say that he has been generous when much of his opening speech has been spent attacking our assertions.
The White Paper acknowledged that under the NHS contract system, district health authorities would he able to place contracts outside their districts and require patients to travel to those hospitals for treatment. That is why, in the White Paper, the concept of core services—services to which patients should have guaranteed local access—emerged. But that concept of core services did not find its way into the Bill, and the Government rejected an Opposition new clause which would have inserted in the Bill the promises made by the Government in the White Paper.
Nothing in the Bill guarantees local access to vital facilities such as maternity and child health care and services for the elderly and mentally ill. There is nothing in the Bill to stop district health authorities requiring people in their areas to travel to obtain those services.

Mr. Forsyth: I despair. If we had put in the Bill everything that is needed to reject every accusation made by the hon. Lady, it would run to 600 clauses rather than 60. She talks about core services. In Committee, one of the few Opposition Members who played a constructive role was the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). What is a core service in his constituency might not be a core service in a hospital in the middle of a city. It would be ludicrous to try to define core services in legislation. The health authorities will be responsible for the contract and for defining core services.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I just express relief that we are not on television at the moment? What does the Minister have against me?

Mr. Forsyth: I could tell the hon. Gentleman, but if did the hon. Member for Peckham might insist that I put it in the Bill. I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to have such a permanent monument.
The truth is that Opposition Members understand the argument and support us. They support us on quality of care, efficiency of the delivery of care, more information for consultants and GPs, further devolution of management to hospital and unit level, flexible accounting systems to reflect clinical-led doctor-patient choice and medical audits.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Rubbish.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says rubbish. He implies that the Opposition does not support us on those things. I have here a document produced by the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who cannot be with us today. It is entitled "Working for Patients—A Critique." It is published by the Labour party in Scotland. Under a section entitled "What's Good in the White Paper" and under the heading "Quality of Care", it says:
This has largely been taken from Labour's White Paper.
Under the heading "Efficiency in the Delivery of Care", it says:
Yet again this is taken from Labour's White Paper.
Under the heading "More Information Available to Consultants and General Practitioners", it says:


We welcome this, because it will improve services.
Under "Further Devolution of Management to Hospital and Unit Level", it says, surprisingly:
This should be done and is being done already within the current structure. We would issue hospitals with their own budgets, but only WITHIN health boards. Savings should go back to the health board".
The difference between us and the Opposition is that although we both believe in devolving budgets the Government believe that the budgets and savings should remain at local level so that those who provide care can use them effectively.
Under the heading, "A Flexible Accounting System to Reflect Clinical Led Doctor/Patient Choice", the document says:
We support money following patients.
That is not what the hon. Member for Peckham told us in Committee.

Ms. Harman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth: No.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forsyth: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I must insist on reading out the Labour party's policy document because it is so sensible. Under the heading "Audit", it says:
Again taken from Labour's White Paper. Why has it taken the Government so long to be interested in this?
I know that the Labour party in Scotland is unilateralist on defence, but I had no idea that its position extended to supporting the provisions in the Bill.

Ms. Harman: We support money following the patient. The problem is that in the Bill the patient will follow the money because the patient will go where the contract is. If we had a system of fund allocation that recognised where patients were treated and compensated the hospital that treated them, it would be one thing. But the patients will not be able to go to a hospital unless a contract has been placed there. Where is medical audit in the Bill?

Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that if the hon. Lady had a word with the hon. Member for Livingston, the Front-Bench spokesman on health, or the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, they would be able to explain the position.
The biggest threat to the NHS would be the election of a Labour Government. The Labour Government cut, cut and cut. They cut nurses' pay and they cut capital spending by a third. They closed one hospital every week and cut expenditure on the Health Service from 5 per cent.——

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth: No. I have given way generously.

Mr. Clarke: How much longer?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman complains that I am taking too much time.

Mr. Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister's remarks were based on the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk,

East (Mr. Ewing) the other day. My hon. Friend produced information which showed that what the Minister said was a complete distortion. Will he withdraw it now?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, but it is a good opportunity for me to remind the House that a Third Reading deals with what is contained in the Bill. I hope that hon. Members—[Interruption.] Order. I call both sides to order. I hope that from now on hon. Members will debate precisely what is in the proposed legislation.

Mr. Forsyth: I realise that it is a painful experience to describe Labour's record but I accept your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall return to the substance of the Bill.
In contrast to what appears to be the Opposition's position, the purpose of the Bill was set out clearly in the foreground to "Working For Patients" by the Prime Minister. She spelt out in one short sentence the key thinking behind our proposals. She said:
The National Health Service will continue to be available to all, regardless of income, and to be financed mainly out of general taxation.
We are building a National Health Service on that principle. It will be more responsive to patients' needs by devolving decision making to local level, to general practitioners, to NHS trusts, and to district, region and health board level, where appropriate. We shall direct resources to where a patient's need is met. I am delighted that the hon. Lady now says that she supports the money following the patient.
We shall end the efficiency trap in which doctors and units that provided a good service ran up against the barriers of their budgets. The money did not come in on the backs of the patients. The position at present is that the patient follows the money and that is why the reforms are necessary. We are building a streamlined management in the NHS because we believe that a better-run Health Service can better care for the sick. We are emphasising quality of service through our proposals on audit and guidance on matters such as waiting areas, appointment areas and choice of consultants.
In our proposals on care in the community, we are ensuring that there are clear lines of responsibility and a system of funding which enables the many elderly people who wish to remain in their own homes to do so. We shall end the perverse system of funding that makes putting people into residential care a more attractive option for many local authorities.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Will the Minister outline what action the Government have taken in the Bill to develop alternatives to institutional care? It is all right to say that the Bill ends the perverse incentive to institutional care, but what alternatives are there for vast numbers of elderly people? The Government are doing nothing about developing alternatives or genuine community care.

Mr. Forsyth: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He must recognise that the changes that we propose end the incentive for local authorities to recommend a residential placement where care and support, perhaps through home help or other provision, could have enabled an elderly person to remain at home. That is a fundamental change which will bring considerable benefit to many thousands of elderly people.
The Labour party emerges from our proceedings on the Bill as a party with nothing new to offer the Health Service. It has shown itself wedded to the vested interests of the trade unions. It has no vision of what the National Health Service should strive for during the 1990s, and the opposition that we have had has been a catalogue of political drum-beating, with no coherent strategy on the table.
Our record is one of success, dedication and commitment to the National Health Service, its staff and its patients. That is why we can take our reforms forward confident in the knowledge that we can translate words into actions.
Under this Government, more resources have been made available to the National Health Service than ever before in its history. We have more doctors and nurses, and a record number of patients are being treated. We have a record of which to be proud. The Bill will ensure that our success and commitment can be built upon during the rest of the decade.
The Bill deserves the support of the House in the interests of millions of patients throughout the United Kingdom. It is the charter for patients that we promised when we published the White Paper. It is a charter for choice, quality and freedom for the patient, and I commend it to the House.

5 pm

Mr. John Maxton: The Minister is right: we have emerged from the earlier stages of the Bill into this Third Reading debate. I do not have the exact poll figures before me, but it is worth noting that, back in December last year, the Labour party was about 9·5 per cent. to 10 per cent. in the lead. We are now 21 per cent. in the lead in the United Kingdom as a whole; and in the area in which the Minister has an interest as chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland our lead is 31 per cent. and rising, despite all his efforts. After the Prime Minister's disastrous visit to Scotland last weekend, we can assume that our lead will soon be considerably greater.
The Minister made a disgraceful speech. It had nothing to do with the Bill. He spent the whole time talking about what the Labour party had said and what the Labour party was doing and made no reference to the Bill. Moreover, he took some 35 minutes to do that, although he and his colleagues have imposed an unnecessary and unwanted timetable upon our Third Reading debate under which discussion is limited to only three hours. I know that many of my hon. Friends, and some Conservative Members who still have reservations about the Bill, want to make some comments on it, and I shall therefore try to keep my remarks brief.
First, let me place on record my thanks, and the thanks of all Labour Members and of the vast majority of the British people—who have the highest regard for the National Health Service and believe that this Bill will damage it—to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who has led the opposition to the Bill. He has ensured that the issues have been placed eloquently, clearly, constructively and forcefully before both the House and the general public, and the general public believe my hon. Friend much more readily than they believe the Secretary of State.
I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Peckham (Ms. Harman), for Monklands, West (Mr.

Clarke) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for their assistance, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) for his work as Whip on the Committee. I also thank all those organisations representing the medical profession, patients, local authorities and the broad spectrum of medical care in Britain, which oppose the Bill and which have briefed us so usefully.
I shall leave the community care aspects of the Bill largely to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West because it is probably now acknowledged that he is one of the greatest experts on the matter in the country.
In his Second Reading speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston made clear our fundamental opposition to the Bill. Nothing that has happened since then—in Committee or on Report—has lessened that opposition. If anything, we are now more worried about the future of the Health Service than we were before. Despite our opposition in principle to the Government's proposals, we attempted in Committee to amend the Bill sensibly and by rational argument.
We attempted to look into what the Minister has described as the "myths". We claimed that there was a hidden agenda and we tried through amendments to give the Government an opportunity to dispel those so-called myths. In the end, all our arguments, and all the arguments of those representing doctors, nurses and other medical workers, carers and patients, were rejected. The Government rejected all our amendments. The only amendments that they considered with any sympathy were those tabled by Right-wing ideologues on their Back Benches, who were trying to persuade them that they were not going nearly far enough to privatise the Health Service in Scotland.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members: Give way to a Right-wing ideologue.

Mr. Maxton: I would hardly describe the hon. Gentleman as a Right-wing ideologue, although there are one or two of them present today.
The Minister today did what he and his colleagues have done throughout the Bill's passage, and uttered a lot of honeyed, hypocritical words about choice and improving the service. The Government know that the National Health Service is the most popular public body in the country. They know that they cannot openly express their real views on it—particularly the real views of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—or openly reform it as they would if they were following their natural ideological bent. They know that to do so would be electorally disastrous. Thus, they hide their true intent behind sweet words and devious legislation.
But the people of Britain do not believe them. At least a small part of their present low-standing in the opinion polls—as I said, they are 21 per cent. behind Labour—is due to the fact that the public know what their true intentions are.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the same thing will happen to Labour's lead in the opinion polls now as happened in 1984–85 and in 1982, when the public see——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing whatever to do with the Bill. Mr. Maxton.

Mr. Maxton: I think that I agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, with The Guardian, if I may briefly——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. What is good for one side is good for the other. The House should come back to the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: I shall, of course, accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Secretary of State has said that the Bill represents the most major reform of the National Health Service since its inception. He is right. The Bill is designed to create a structure for the Health Service which will allow the Government to push it ever faster towards the sort of profit-led care that is prevalent in the United States, in which they believe, despite all their sweet words. We shall have hospitals managed as separate units, health authorities forced to operate market structures, general practitioners operating their own budgets and others working with indicative budgets. When we tabled amendments to dispel all those so-called myths, the Minister would accept none of them.
All that will fragment the Health Service and mean that each part of the service will be forced to work financially separately from the others. Of itself, the Bill does not give us the commercial system that the Tories instinctively want, but taken with the financial restraints that the Government are imposing on the system, it will create an atmosphere in which sections of the public will accept the gradual erosion of a universal Health Service that is free at the point of use. Let me give two examples. In February last year, the Secretary of State said that his proposals for opt-out hospitals would encourage local pride in our hospitals and give the local people more ability to take the big decisions in their own part of the service. Those were fine words, but when the Bill was printed it merely said:
The Secretary of State may by order establish … National Health Service trusts.
Both for England and Wales and for Scotland, we tabled amendments in Committee and on Report that were designed to give employees, patients and local people the right to decide, or to be consulted, on the future of their hospital. Not one of those amendments was accepted. The Bill remains unchanged, and legally the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland may force hospitals to opt out, with no consultation and against the wishes of the majority of people in their area.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Gentleman is following the example of his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and supporting his allegation by saying that we did not take amendments in the Bill, as if that gives it some sort of credibility. His hon. Friend is a lawyer, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is; however, I am sure that he is an experienced parliamentarian, and realises that legislation is necessary to give a Government and a Secretary of State legal powers which they otherwise lack. One does not write political slogans all over legislation or answer political allegations made by the Opposition. Because some unnecessary amendment was thrown out, that is not a basis for inventing all kinds of groundless allegations and for saying that they are sustained because they are not contained in the law.

Mr. Maxton: That was a remarkable intervention by the Secretary of State. It was an intervention by an English

lawyer, but in Scotland what is carried out is in the Bill and has to be in it. If it is not, the Bill has no statutory or legal standing.

Mr. Clarke: That is not true.

Mr. Maxton: It is true. If the Secretary of State does not understand Scottish law, that is a great pity.
Whatever assurances the Secretary of State has given, and whatever he may say, the simple fact is that we now have no idea what will happen in Scotland about possible opting out. I shall give a Scottish example.
A new hospital is being built in Ayr. The consultants who work in the hospital were called to a meeting—they did not ask for it—by the general manager of the Ayrshire and Arran health board. They were dragooned by him, or it was strongly suggested that they might like, to write to the Scottish Office to seek futher information about National Health Service trust status for that hospital. The vast majority of them have made it quite clear that they were opposed to the whole concept of opting out. Only six of them were in favour and that was because they had been given a clear hint—I do not know whether it was by the Scottish Office or by the general manager—that, if they did opt out, the second phase of the hospital was likely to be built more quickly than if they remained within the National Health Service.
There is certainly now a rumour circulating in the area that consultants at the hospital have expressed support for opting out. I think it was late yesterday morning when the junior Minister from the Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), said that four hospitals in Scotland have expressed an interest in opting out. He refused to name them. Perhaps he can tell us now whether Ayr hospital is one of them. I give the Minister the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: A number of hospitals are in discussions with the Scottish Office. A number of consultants and others have expressed an interest in self-governing status.

Mr. John Home Robertson: They had their arms twisted.

Mr. Forsyth: They have expressed an interest. They come to the Scottish Office and say that they want to find out more about the proposals and whether they will benefit their patients. It is perfectly reasonable for them to do so. However, they expect us to maintain confidentiality.
It is wholly irresponsible for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to go around telling tales of the kind that he has just related to the House. Frankly, they are mischievous. He knows that we are not in a position to respond without breaking our undertaking to maintain confidentiality. It is another example of myth and mischief-making and has nothing to do with any argument of principle about the Bill.
There are people, for example at the Royal Scottish National hospital, who see a benefit in these trusts.

Mr. Maxton: The length of that speech was ridiculous. I take it that the answer to my question about the hospital in Ayr was yes. The Minister could have said that more quickly than he did.
Yes, that hospital is one of the four that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I have just described the circumstances. The Minister said that he has to maintain


confidentiality. Does that mean that people in Ayr and the people that that hospital will serve are not entitled to know that it is considering opting out?
What does that have to do with consultation? What does it have to do with local people taking decisions in their own area and being able to decide what happens in their own hospitals? The Minister is prepared to keep all those things under his hat.
I do not want to take up the same amount of time as the Under-Secretary of State, so I shall move on. It is claimed that the reforms will create patients' choice, because the patients will take the money with them—we are in favour of that if there is any money to take—to buy whatever services they require from the GP or the hospital. The Government claim that they will provide the money, as they do at present, but for how long? As they restrict budgets and control expenditure, they will force GPs into fund-holding status and force hospitals to opt out.
Patients who require expensive, lengthy treatment may find that the GPs or the hospitals say that they are sorry, they would like to treat them but that the health board cannot pay sufficient money for their services. They will say, "If you care to top it up yourself, we can help you." People who can afford to pay will pay out of their own pockets or take out insurance policies. Those who cannot afford to pay will be forced to accept second-rate health care.
The Government believe that, ultimately, choice depends upon the resources available. At no stage of the Bill's consideration would they give any guarantee about improving or even maintaining resources for the NHS.
The NHS is not inefficient, as the Government constantly claim. There are no more massive savings to be made by so-called efficiency improvements. It is already underfunded. It now has a structure that will allow the Government to exploit the fears of sick people and to make them accept a commercially driven health service—whatever their denials, that is on the hidden agenda of the Bill. The present structure of the NHS does not allow for such a development but the new structure will.
The Bill, taken together with the Government's drive to privatise services—from cleaners, laundry services and catering to pharmacies, medical records, laboratory services and radiography—make it obvious what road the Government are taking the Health Service down by devious means.
The British public are on our side on this matter. They want a Health Service that does not depend on income—one which will provide equal service to all, whether rich or poor. Every opinion poll bears that out. The public have rumbled the Government's true intention in the Bill. If they insist on going ahead, they will pay the political price that they so richly deserve. We shall continue to oppose the Bill by all legitimate means. I ask my hon. Friends, hon. Members from other Opposition parties and those Conservative Members who have expressed concern during the passage of the Bill to join me in voting against giving the Bill a Third Reading.

Sir David Price: At this late stage I shall, for the first time, make a few comments on the Bill. When the House was debating Second Reading I was, as the Scottish say, "No weel"—I was in bed with the 'flu and could not take part.
I read the Hansard report of the Second Reading debate carefully and I detected a common criticism in many of the speeches, to the effect that my right hon. Friends were wrong to put together in the same Bill the implementation of the recent White Paper, "Caring for People" and the reforms in the management of the NHS. I reject that criticism and I welcome the fact that reform of the NHS and reform in care in the community have been brought together in the same Bill.
My reason is simple. In the real world—not the world of parliamentary debates—health care is a complete spectrum. It goes from the person's home through various degrees of hospital treatment, to the acute ward and back again. For example, schizophrenics suffer many degrees of disability. Even people with AIDS have episodic conditions that require them to go into an acute ward, to come out and to be cared for in the community. Therefore, it is right that we should consider the whole spectrum.
Both the White Papers on which the Bill is based concentrated on
the organisation and management of all direct patient care services".
That is my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's description, not mine. That concentration is reflected in the Bill.
The most important factors in any consideration of the future of health care are these. First, we must assess the trend in the demand for services. Secondly, we must calculate, as best we can, the various options by means of which those demands can best be met. The Select Committee has drawn attention to the gap, which I believe is growing, between rising demand and rising resources. My right hon. and learned Friend has scolded the Committee on numerous occasions for doing so. However, we are merely doing what any market researcher would do—or, to put it in military terms, time spent on reconnaissance is never time wasted.
The Select Committee has also drawn attention to the importance of better information about the outcome of health care. In that, I suggest, may lie one way of achieving a more productive use of the large resources that are now devoted to health care.
The Government argue, in my judgment perfectly reasonably, that if existing resources can be used more effectively, the need for additional resources becomes less urgent. Their method of achieving that desirable end is through the establishment of what, in the jargon, we call an internal market within a wholly, or nearly wholly, publicly financed Health Service.
That is an entirely novel concept. It has not been attempted anywhere else in the world. Therefore, no one can say with confidence that it will work; nor, conversely, can anyone say with confidence that it will not work. That is why the Select Committee took a cautious view of the Government's proposals. Nothing that has happened throughout the passage of the Bill—I have read most of the Committee proceedings—has led me to drop the caution that the Select Committee felt collectively—

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: If it is impossible to say with confidence that the internal market will or will not work, ought we to interfere with the massive range of services that the hon. Gentleman has so clearly identified are provided for community care, right through to hospital


services? Ought we to interfere if we cannot be sure that such interference will not be to the detriment of such important services?

Sir David Price: That is a fair point. That is why the Select Committee recommended in various reports before the Bill was introduced that trials should take place. That remains my view. When the Bill is implemented, in practice my right hon. and learned Friend will be conducting trials. Hospitals that opt for trust status will be volunteers. Furthermore, doctors who decide to opt for budgets will again be volunteers. It may not be the planned trial that I would personally like, but it will nevertheless be a trial by volunteers. The problem is that statisticians will tell us that it is not a random sample. However, there is far more of a trial element in the proposals than is recognised outside Parliament.
If we face a resource problem over the future of the National Health Service, I believe that we face an even greater resource problem over care in the community. On a number of occasions throughout this Parliament I have tried to draw attention to the great unsatisfied need out there for care in the community. The need is far greater than is generally realised. We are given some guidance on that by the report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on the disabled. Far more people are crying out for help than is recognised in any official statistics. I intend to quote from evidence that was given to the Select Committee two weeks ago by the Alzheimer's Disease Society. I could, however, give 50 or 100 more examples of a similar nature. The society's evidence stated:
The Alzheimer's Disease Society believes the White Paper"—
upon which the Bill is based—
fails overtly to recognise the scale, growth and awareness factors that are going to drive increased demand for improved provision in the next ten years for people suffering from dementia (Alzheimer's disease being the most common form), let alone their carers, mostly family members, husbands, wives, sons or daughters. The Society estimates the pressure on carers is going to increase by a factor of four.
I leave the House to reflect upon the consequences of that estimate.
That takes me logically to the funding problems arising out of care in the community policies. They are dealt with in parts III and IV of the Bill. With this debate in mind, the Select Committee published an urgent report entitled, "Community Care: Funding for Local Authorities." I commend it to the House. For reasons of brevity, I shall not take the House through the report. However, I draw its attention to two of our comments. In the introduction we said:
Sir Roy Griffiths has pointed out one major difference between his proposals for the future of community care and those set out in the Government's White Paper:
'I had provided a purposeful, effective and economic four-wheel vehicle, but the White Paper has redesigned it as a three-wheeler, leaving out the fourth wheel of ring-fenced funding'.
The ring-fenced funding issue is one that we must continue to pursue. In our report to the House we also said:
Almost all the evidence we have received expresses regret, or dismay, that the Government has not decided to 'ring-fence' local authorities' resources for community care.
Every written submission that we have received has been along the same lines.
I hope that the Government will think again about this major problem of ring fencing. It does not require an additional amendment to the Bill; it can be done administratively. In view of the difficulties that the Government are experiencing over local government finance, I urge them to welcome our proposals and embrace them. I hope that they will do just that.

Dr. Kim Howells: The people of Wales will be disappointed with and angry about the Bill. They will be disappointed because they will regard it as a missed opportunity to do much for the National Health Service that could have been done right now. It is a missed opportunity, in that it will lead to an experiment instead of to solid policies that would improve the NHS as it stands.
I do not defend all National Health Service practices; I am sure that many other hon. Members have sat at night, as I have done, in miserable hospital waiting rooms. I have been unable to receive service when my children needed it. However, the NHS has come to be seen as part of our heritage—as something that is indivisible from our definition of a civilised society.
People are angry about the Bill. Their anger is reflected in the political polls. They believe that the Bill poses a real threat to that part of their heritage. They believe that it threatens the whole basis of the NHS: that, when somebody is ill or requires treatment, he receives it free of charge and that the treatment he receives is the best that is available at the time, wherever he needs it.
My constituents, and the constituents of many right hon. and hon. Members, see hospitals falling apart before their very eyes. They do not believe that the Bill will result in waiting lists disappearing overnight, or even within years. They see no end to the Government's terrible tendency throughout the last 10 years to depend on the goodwill of hospital personnel and of people outside hospitals to spend their spare time on the streets collecting for vital pieces of diagnostic machinery and other machinery that is used for treatment—machinery that cannot be bought because of the shambles of this Government's administration of the NHS. People want to know what the Bill will do about it.
I believe that the Bill will do nothing. The weasel words it contains will try to encourage the staff of hospitals not to do what they should be doing—improving their own standards of excellence and practice—but to be out in the streets as part-time charity workers trying to raise money for vital pieces of equipment. That is not good enough and it will be reflected at the next general election—indeed, I hope that it will be reflected in a couple of week's time.
When patients go to hospitals after the Bill becomes law, will they find that there is a different reception for them when they go into the out-patients' or casualty departments? I am afraid that they will be met by the same junior doctors who have probably been awake for so long on duty that they cannot diagnose the condition of their own socks, let alone the condition of someone else's heart.
People will ask how the Bill will affect the position of patients who have been turned out from long-term care facilities. I and others have seen such people wandering the streets because there is not sufficient back-up resources or finance to look after them when they have been turned out. What will the Bill do about that? I cannot see that it will do anything.

Ms. Primarolo: As I mentioned earlier, I am a member of a district health authority. In preparation for the Bill, and to improve its corporate image, Bristol and Western district health authority is to spend £7,000 on new uniforms for the reception area of the hospital. That may not be a huge amount, but it is a lot of money when it comes to the closure of beds or wards. We can expect glitter, but no service.

Dr. Howells: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Just two weeks ago, I spent long hours at the side of the bed of my two-year-old son. I had plenty of time, as did every other parent in the ward, to contemplate the peeling paintwork on the walls, the antiquated cots and the cracked windows. That is the condition of hospitals in my constituency, which is by no means exceptional.
I and many other parents have had such a chance to contemplate what we see around us and such contemplation is good for increasing awareness of what is needed and what is not needed. We do not require glitter or corporate images. That £7,000 could have been used to purchase paint for the parents' waiting area. Currently, the nurses chip in to buy paint for it and they do the painting themselves because there is no money for it in the hospital budget. What will the Bill do about that? It will do nothing.
When one spends time in hospital, it is interesting to talk to the staff and to the consultants, who are beginning to understand the "hidden agenda" of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) described it. I know what the hidden agenda is. It is a screenplay that will impose on the House at some future date a hefty Bill called the Privatisation of the National Health Service Bill.
All the signs of that hidden agenda can be seen in the Bill. Let us look at the words—"trusts", "fund-holding practices", "originating capital debt", and "indicative budgets". The contracts between general practitioners and hospital trusts start to resemble the arrangements that Sainsbury might make for purchasing a slightly battered carcase of meat from a wholesaler or a case of hazelnut yogurt that requires some salmonella-infected pots to be removed.
Patients are not commodities, and people do not regard themselves as the financial part of an equation that can be worked out by accountants. The NHS was not created for that and that is not why it has been run since. People in Wales have rejected those ideas time and time again in every election and by-election. I am sure that the people of the rest of the country will do the same.

Mr. Michael Morris: Once again, I must declare an interest as I am married to a general practitioner and I act as an adviser to two pharmaceutical companies.
It does not give me great pleasure to make this speech, because I recognise that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my hon. Friends the Minister for Health and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health are motivated by a desire to improve patient care; I want to put that on record. The sad thing is that the Bill will not achieve that aim. If its objective were to produce a dramatic improvement in the financial management of the National Health Service, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee I should give

it three cheers. However, it represents an attempt to create an internal market driven by a decision to cash-limit the whole of the NHS, and that is a big change. Medical appraisal will no longer be the key determinant. Once the Bill reaches the statute book, cost and not patient need will be the driving issue. That is why I oppose the Bill in principle.
If the Bill had resulted in a level playing field with some in-built mechanism whereby wage costs were automatically funded by the Treasury, progress would have been made. However, when I looked at the Bill, I related it to the most recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General—report No. 566, which was produced in July 1989. In paragraph 5 on page 1, the Comptroller and Auditor General said:
Health authorities have faced uncertainties concerning pay levels which are decided at national level and price increases, which have tended to be greater than the average for the economy".
That rather blows a hole in my right hon. Friend's recent statement that price increases in the NHS did not have to include an allowance for mortgage interest increases. We must remember that any report from the Comptroller and Auditor General has to be agreed by the Department responsible, so that report must have been agreed by the Department of Health.
At a sitting of the Public Accounts Committee, I asked the chief executive of the National Health Service whether he was constrained by cash limits. The answer was yes. I asked the Treasury whether it was likely that the difference between the allowance for wage cost increases of about 5 per cent. and the actual cost of nationally agreed settlements would be made up by the Treasury and the answer was no.
Against such a financial background one has to ask specifically why, at almost every turn, the key people who can make people well again—the doctors—are treated with such disdain. It is a foolhardy person who ignores the advice of the royal colleges. I hope that their advice will not be ignored in the other place. No patient will be made better by 4,000 new accountants; they are more likely to be made better by 400 new consultants.
I hope that the regulations that will ensue from the Bill will ensure that at the very least—my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State did not have the chance to make this point yesterday—there is proper medical representation as of right at every tier of authority. I also hope that the medical advisory committees will be extended to cover all health authorities and National Health Service trusts, because that is a key issue.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), raised the question of indicative drug budgets. Given that the Government have shifted their position, why on earth is clause 18 still in the Bill? The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme controls the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry and prescribing analyses and costs are being used on a trial basis by a number of family practitioner committees, available as a control mechanism to help GPs with prescribing difficulties.
I am not convinced about cash limits on prescriptions. I have asked many times what will happen when all the GPs in a region overspend. Where will the money come from ? Will it come from some other aspect of patient care or out of the Government's contingency budget? In a


telling intervention the other evening, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) gave a concrete example of a hospital, with licensed medicine only on partial release, being restricted because the North West Thames health authority had said so. Similar cases have been reported in the press. The reality is that there are constraints on prescribing and the Government must get their act together and ensure that that does not happen on the ground. It is no good saying that it does not, because it is happening at the moment.
Why do we not learn from the experience of countries such as the United States where much research covering 47 states, not just some minor town, shows that restricted formularies lead to more money being spent on hospital care? If people do not use modern medicines, more people go into hospital care. For my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to say that generic medicine is just the same shows a degree of ignorance that is not right in a Minister of the Crown in this important area.
This is the fourth reorganisation of the NHS since I have been a Member of the House, but Ministers have failed to understand that they must take the people with them if they are to make changes which will affect the largest employer in Europe. They may have to argue, discuss and take difficult decisions but, as sure as anything, they must take the people with them. It is outstanding that the great majority of employees in the NHS at any level are not in favour of the changes.
The opportunity in the Bill for devolution to a lower tier is greatly to be welcomed. We all have a district general hospital crying out for some independence, but instead we have the NHS trust, some transatlantic concept. I do not know how many hospitals will take that up. At first there were 350. That figure dropped to 120 and it now stands at around 80. My guess is that we shall be lucky to have 50. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said, we had a skewed sample. How much better it would have been to start with a properly structured sample so that we could have had a reasonable test market to see whether the proposal worked; if it did, it could have been extended.
The Bill is full of dangerous precedents. It is full of the bureaucracy that the Public Accounts Committee has grown to question. I have been reading the contracts for health services, and they are only the beginning. I have spent 10 years on the Public Accounts Committee trying to get rid of this sort of stuff. I have clearly failed dismally. One aspect of the Bill that could be welcomed is medical audit. The other evening some hon. Members raised the question of quality of care, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State seemed to respond. That should be written into the Bill. I do not agree with the Opposition's suggestion that there should be a committee which will meet only twice a year. Such quality control should take place all the time. However, I think we are all at one on the importance of the quality of care and I hope that that will be written into the Bill in another place.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I do not want my hon. Friend to conclude and suffer in agony for the rest of the short debate in the belief that our intention is to cash-limit the NHS, in particular at national, regional FPC and individual doctor level. My right hon. and learned Friend

the Secretary of State made that clear in Committee, on which my hon. Friend did not serve. But for the avoidance of doubt I repeat that there is no intention to cash-limit the family Health Service in the sense that drugs and prescriptions are part of that service. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that. I appreciate his powerful arguments, which are largely a repeat of what he said on Second Reading, but I hope that he will accept my assurance on behalf of the Government on that narrow point.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that he has clarified the point, but I shall have to consider carefully what he said.
We did not discuss amendment No. 118 on the medical practices committee on Report. Why on earth do we have to upset the medical practices system which has worked perfectly well for years? Everybody is satisfied with it, but now we are to have some sort of subjective assessment which will turn it upside down.
The Bill does not destroy the NHS, and anyone who suggests that it does is way off beam, but it does not enhance it. Millions of hours will be spent as a result of it, but, sadly, waiting lists continue to grow. We all know—it is better that we say it—that in the next few weeks and months more wards will be closed. Things will not get easier. Every survey shows the grave disquiet felt by the public.
It cannot be right that the House has to keep producing early-day motions to save the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital for women or the Mount Vernon skin graft hospital. It cannot be right to have Jimmy Savile charging round the country trying to save Stoke Mandeville hospital. Just down the road from here we have the world's leading hospital, the Maudsley, yet there too there are cuts. That is a crazy way to go on. I hope that all that will be considered in another place.
We get our health care pretty cheap in Britain, at about 6·1 per cent. of GNP. It is the most cost-efficient health service among 18 industrial nations. The Bill will be good news for accountants and lawyers, but I sincerely question how it will benefit patients. I remain unconvinced, so I shall oppose it.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: We have had some excellent contributions so far. The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) said that the Bill will not destroy the NHS. But I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) that it is a paving measure that will move us towards American-style private health care. Conservative Members may not understand that, but the people do. They can see the real agenda and they know what they want to avoid.
I want to concentrate on the forgotten part of the Bill—community care. That is an afterthought. I thought that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland would sit down without mentioning it. That has happened before and I thought that it would happen again. But he referred to it in passing, so I could not say that he did not.
The Government have had 10 years to develop a strategy for community care, but the Bill is a major disappointment. It is a missed opportunity. The more one looks at the events of this week and in Committee, the more one can see that the legislation is full of holes. It will be only a matter of time before we have inquiries and


recommendations, which will make us get down to looking at the issues that the Opposition and some Conservative Members have pointed out during the Bill's passage.
The main feature of the Bill is the way in which the Government have put their free market ideology before what is needed in the development of community care. The Government talk about their wish to establish a flourishing independent sector but also about the avoidance of unnecessary institutional care. It is clear from all the evidence that those principles are contradictory, because the private sector is interested in one thing only—the provision of institutional care, as that is where the money can be made. The Bill financially discriminates against directly provided local authority care, and that will add to the problem and further stimulate the private sector. At the same time, the Government expect the local authority to provide for the many people rejected by the private sector because they need levels of care that the private sector will not provide, or they cannot afford to pay the price for which the private sector asks.
Is a market model appropriate to community care? My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd has, on a number of occasions, asked whether a market model is appropriate for the provision of health care. I reject a market model in the caring of vulnerable, elderly, handicapped and dependent people, because it is a licence for exploitation. As we have said on several occasions, the type of provision that the Government are prepared to fund, through what was previously open-ended income support, is unplanned provision, ill-thought-out provision, in mansions and large houses. The bulk of provision on the south-east coastal belt does not reflect the needs of our society. It is unplanned. It is there because there are empty bed-and-breakfast establishments for substantial parts of the year. People think that they can make some money by shunting in people who require community care. That is all wrong and the Bill should have tackled that problem.
Provision is aimed only at institutional care. There is no attempt to develop alternatives by the private sector. Businesses do not see any means of making money in that way.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no programme for rehabilitation of severely disabled people who no longer need acute care in hospitals and no proper provision for the funding of their care in the community? In Tower Hamlets, at least 10 severely disabled people who are ready to leave hospital and live at home cannot do so because such care would cost about £40,000 a year each. There is constant conflict as to who will pay for that—the Health Service or the social services. There are demarcation disputes about who will do the nursing jobs.
One young ex-service man of 28, who is completely disabled from the neck down, has been found a flat, which has been empty since last June. Conflicts such as those that I have described are preventing him from leaving hospital and now the housing department is saying that it cannot keep the flat for him any longer. I am sure that my hon. Friend will know of many such cases. The policy has not been thought out, and provision has not been properly made. The money is not there and many people have to remain in hospital occupying beds when that is no longer necessary and they could live happy lives in the community, if that were done properly.

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend has made a clear and eloquent case. Such cases are not confined to her constituency. Every hon. Member who takes an interest in what is happening in his area is aware of such cases. The problem that we have to get over is the Government's tunnel vision about what is needed by elderly and handicapped people. Through that tunnel vision, they see only the institutional model, so people such as the young man whom my hon. Friend described are pointed in one direction only. The cards are stacked against any alternative to that person being in an institution or hospital care. We have to get away from that.

Mr. Rowe: I am listening with great attention, as I always do, to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Will he agree on two points? First, the thrust of the Bill is to provide an assessment and a care manager, the purpose of which is to keep people out of institutional care. Secondly, in many authorities, mine included, the thrust of the development over the past 10 years has been to diminish residential care as a priority placement.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman is most consistent, because he has made that point in interventions in my speeches at least four times during the passage of the legislation, and I shall make the same response. An assessment by a social worker, or whoever, is based on what is available. My criticism of the Bill is that it encourages the provision of only institutional care, rather than preventive, domiciliary care. That is my central concern.
In Committee, the Opposition made the point, several times, that the worst practice is rewarded by the market model system developed by the Government. The larger the home, the more profitable the venture, and the more people who can be packed in, the more money will be made. Home owners will agree with that. I have already referred to the new nursery home in my constituency, with 100 beds. That is not a home. I should not want to live somewhere with 100 beds, The people setting up the home told me that they had that many beds because they could make economies of scale—the more one gets in, the more money one makes. That is wrong. It is not in the interests of the people whom we should be representing.

Mr. Allen McKay: This is a growing problem. My local authority has received six planning applications for extensions of existing homes or the building of new ones. Those places will have between 80 and 100 beds. They are not homes: they are institutions.

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is right. He knows the sort of homes that we are talking about. We are going back 20 or 30 years, to the workhouse environment where people were packed in. We should be sensitive to people's needs.
The crux of the matter is a point that I have tried to raise on several occasions and that will be understood by my hon. Friends who served on the Standing Committee. It is whether caring for profit in such circumstances is morally right. Are we happy about attracting into provision of care for the elderly and handicapped organisations such as Stakis plc, a hotels, leisure and property group, or Kunick plc, an amusement arcade group? What relevance have amusement arcades to the


care of handicapped people? What expertise in caring for demented and senile individuals, who may be doubly incontinent, have such people?
Buckingham International, a disco and leisure company, is now to move into the private care market. Are those the people whom we want to be caring for our mothers and grandmothers—dependants and the vulnerable? Are those the companies that we want to attract to a welfare state based on a market model? Ladbroke now has over 1,000 beds in caring provision. Boddingtons and Vaux Breweries are also moving into this sector. What relevance do breweries have to caring for the handicapped and elderly? Univent Ltd. has become well known for its practices. When residents in its homes go into hospital, it clears out their possessions, shoves them in a cellar and gives the bed to somebody else. That is the practice that the Government are encouraging with this market model. Is that appropriate?

Mr. Dennis Turner: In the midst of the changes in residential care, when we have to be ever more careful and conscious of the accommodation being made available and the people and organisations that lie behind it, where is the ethic responsibility of social services within the Bill, or the resources that will be necessary for them to do the policing of the new major administrative roles? We know that the Government have made no provision for resources for the new personnel who will be needed, so they will not be policed. The authority in my constituency has estimated that when the Bill is enacted it will need £2 million to £3 million to do the job in the way in which the Government say it should be done. It knows, however, that that will not be possible. As we know that there will be a lack of resources, we should tell the people now what the real position will be. People will not receive the services that they need and social service departments will lose out.

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend has an excellent track record in local government and speaks with experience of the problems that are being faced at the grass roots. He is right to say that the resources will not be available to enable authorities to provide the services that are needed. Resources must be concentrated on the alternatives to institutional care. In that respect, the Government have tunnel vision.
The White Paper referred to enabling individuals to have choice and the Government have claimed that the advent of private care homes has given people choice. I do not know how many hon. Members have spoken to their constituents to learn what choice means. It means that now and in future, where there is a vacancy in a home, one person will take the vacancy. That is the reality of the present choice.
If there were real choice, there would be the option of not going into a home. People would be able to remain in the community. They would be able to remain in their own homes where they have lived all their lives. They would be able to stay in their own communities. They would not have to be shunted into an institution miles away from their families and friends. Instead, the Government have hammered alternative care and options to the institution, which means living in large groups miles away from families and friends. They have hammered the home help

and meals-on-wheels services, sheltered housing and every real attempt to keep people out of institutional care. As a result, the market has been stimulated. That was the aim behind the Government's policy.
What should the Bill have done? It should have provided for genuine community care, developing options to the institution that were based on a real choice, which would enable people to stay where they have always lived. The Bill should have introduced planning and the co-ordination of community care to replace the shambles and ragbag that exists between different Government Departments and departments at local level.
We need a community care Minister. There is no reference to such a Minister in the Bill. The establishment of such an office is a policy commitment of the Labour party. I am proud to say that that will shortly be Government policy in this place. A legal duty should be placed on local authorities—this idea was resisted by the Government in Committee—to develop options to institutional care. I return to the argument of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe): we must ensure that social workers make genuine assessments and not those that are restricted by what is available in the way of institutional homes. Assessments should be based on what is available in a person's community, to keep him or her out of an institutional home and in his or her own home as a member of the community.

Mr. Ian McCartney: As I understand it, my hon. Friend is saying that a home care service should be provided, not merely a home help service. He is advocating the development of skills through the home help service, with opportunities for training and retraining.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Member, but he is attempting to divert the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) from the provisions that are set out in the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wakefield will speak to the Bill.

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has read my mind completely. He said exactly what I intended to say.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has read the mind of the hon. Member for Wakefield. That means that the hon. Member for Wakefield does not have to repeat what his colleague said.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I want to see the development of options to the model that we have been promised by the Government. It is a conservative model of what we have had for far too long. Other countries have developed options. They do not believe that when a person reaches a certain age or has a certain degree of incapacity he or she must leave the family home and go into an institution.
We must have more sheltered housing. We need very sheltered housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield has described the domiciliary support that is needed. There should be support seven days a week in a person's own home if that is needed. Why should not the person to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) referred have that sort of support? In many instances it would be cheaper for the public purse to provide it instead of shunting such people into an institution. We should be thinking of transforming


residential care into a completely different model. We should facilitate community care and stop incarcerating people.
The Government have ducked the challenge of having a completely different vision of community care. They have failed to meet the challenge of keeping people in the community. We should look to future provision and ensure that community care means care in the community, not away from it. On that basis, the Government have failed completely.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who has an enviable knowledge of the community care part of the Bill. I begin by saying that I support the Bill and the concept behind it, which is to open all the facilities in the National Health Service to all the patients within it. Such a concept is long overdue. It will enable a measure of choice to be introduced in the care of patients. The patient will be able to choose whether he is cared for locally or at a distance, and that will have a bearing on the time that he may be asked to wait for an operation. That choice should have been there all along.
I must, however, chide my Front Bench colleagues. They keep telling me that the Bill is a patients' charter. It may be that I am sensitive because I helped to produce a patients' charter, as the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) kindly reminded us last night, with the Association of Community Health Councils. A patients' charter can be produced only by patients and patients' organisations. The best that the Bill can do is be a patients' charter produced by a Government who think that they know what patients want. I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that what the patient wants and what he gets may be rather different things.
I regret that to some extent CHCs have been downgraded as a result of the Bill. We have not put an institution in their place that will speak for patients as I think the voice of the patient should be heard. I hope to return to that subject in later debates.
In the end, what is the Bill about? It is about better service for the patient or it is about nothing. It is about better care from the general practitioner, and an extension of the service that the GP can offer his patient. It is about better hospital care, more consultants in the NHS and making better use of resources. Some may say that if I make such a statement I imply that the Health Service is of a poor standard. It is not. I know that the NHS is a political hot potato that we like to kick around in the Chamber, but the NHS is doing a superbly good job. I can say so because, as I think everybody knows, I am dependent on the Health Service for my life. I declare my interest: I am a kidney dialysis patient. I receive kidney dialysis three times a week through the NHS. I am the president of a kidney patients' charity. I have, therefore, considerable experience of the Health Service.
I listened to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) telling us about the hospital in which his son, sadly, is being treated. He referred to broken windows, peeling wallpaper and so on, and he placed the blame for that on the Government. I have been in many NHS hospitals, and some are good and some are bad. Some are well decorated and some are not. It amounts to good management or bad management. In some instances those

who run a hospital notice such things and in others they do not. We are all guilty because we often find that we live in shabbier surroundings than we imagined when we compare those circumstances with others elsewhere. Lei us not imagine that the Government decide whether a ward is painted or whether someone hangs pictures and makes the place more attractive for patients. Very often such matters are for the people who run our hospitals.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall not give way because time is short and I know that others wish to contribute to the debate.
I am sorry that the Government do not appear to want to follow through my next point. If we are to decide whether our hospitals are coming up to the standard that we expect, we must consider whether there should be a separate hospitals inspectorate. Although it may be a bureaucratic concept that may not find favour on the Treasury Bench at the moment, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to give it a little more thought. Perhaps a third body, such as the Health Advisory Society, which looks at mental hospitals, could be applied to the overall realm of the National Health Service and might help to raise standards and to identify the sort of problems that some of us notice when we go round hospitals and wonder why they are not as we would wish them to be.
If the Bill is about treating patients, in the end it is also about creating a form of accountability for the resources used to treat patients. Therefore, I welcome the idea of clinical audit and the fact that the Audit Commission is to have a say. By definition, all resources in the National Health Service are precious. It is a demand-led service, where the demand is infinite. If the demand is infinite, clearly the resources available to us will always be limited. No hon. Member should imagine that somebody somewhere in this or any other political party will he able to find all the resources that the Health Service will need one day. They will not. I have heard the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) say just that. Whichever Government are in office, they will have to impose some limits on the resources that are available.
The important point, which I believe the Bill addresses, is getting the most out of resources and making all those who spend the resources conscious of the fact that they are spending something precious. Therefore, I welcome the cash-limiting of the drugs budgets. That must be right. I also welcome hospital trusts, and budget-holding practices. I welcome anything that makes those who are spending public money ask themselves whether they are getting the most from the money that they are spending. No practitioner, no matter what he is doing, who handles public money can divorce himself from the cost of the treatment that he intends to provide. Of couse, the cost is not, and should not be, the dominant consideration, but it must play a part.
As I have said, resources are the one thing that must be treated as what they are—precious gold. They must be used as prudently and as economically as possible, so that the greatest number of people can benefit from them. To that extent, the concept that now appears to have all-party support—although I did not know that until this evening—of the money travelling with the patient is of the greatest significance. If the money travels with the patient, that


means that the money goes with the treatment. That has the corollary that once the Bill becomes law, a patient who goes outside his region for treatment will take the resources with him, out of the district. That must introduce a new thinking into the minds of district health authorities.
Perhaps the House will allow me to illustrate what I am trying to say in terms of kidney dialysis facilities. In the United Kingdom, we have 1·2 kidney dialysis units per 1 million of population, whereas in the Federal Republic of Germany there are 5·8 such units; in France there are 4·1; in Italy there are seven; and in Spain there are five units per I million of population. Even in the German Democratic Republic, there are 3·5 units. The fact that those countries have more centres per 1 million of population also discloses that they also have more kidney specialists for their populations. Because of the small number of centres in this country, many patients must travel long distances. Plenty of Health Service studies show that both acceptance of new patients and treatment rates are inversely proportional to the distance of the patient's home from the treatment facility.
A renal consultant has written to me stating that the ethos of the Bill
may promote change … One would expect that a District exporting all its (valuable) renal patients might wonder why it does not keep those patients and treat them for itself. In addition, the District might also look at the cost of ambulance services required for shipping patients to the remote centre"——
that is the kidney dialysis centre—
and decide that these charges could be turned into a clear saving. It is thus possible that a certain number of patients would between them generate sufficient funds to establish a new Unit and pay for a new Consultant Nephrologist.
I am hearing from the patient organisations that British patients would prefer to be treated in small centres where relationships with individual doctors and nurses are maintained rather than in vast centres where they are lost in anonymity.
I suggest that as a result of the Bill that renal consultant's hopes will become a reality. I admit that that is a small example, but it underlines the potential of the Bill. Therefore, for that reason as well as for the others that I have given, I shall support the Bill on Third Reading. However, I add just one caveat. Perhaps it was a good idea to take the Health Service and the community care elements together in the same Bill, although I am one of those who believe that they should have been in two different Bills. But I am still worried about the co-ordination between health and community care. I believe that we shall have to return to that subject and I shall look forward to suggestions made in another place which may return to us as an amendment at some future date.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Over the past decade—and longer—this has been a Government of reforming zeal on so many fronts. Much of that zeal has been well placed, such as the sale of council houses and the encouragement of democracy in trade unionism. However, the zealotry has now begun to blind common sense, not least in relation to the National Health Service. Ten years in office can cocoon a Government from reality.
To paraphrase the earlier critical speech from the Government Back Benches, the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) pointed out what is manifestly the case, yet the public are not behind the Bill one iota. At times the Government would do well to remember the Churchillian dictum of trusting the people. They may well find that, when the people next have an opportunity to give a national verdict on the Government's continuing reforming thrust, not least in relation to health and welfare services, they will lose badly, but deservedly.
My fundamental objection to the Bill is its lack of intellectual honesty. There are two reasons why the Government have felt it necessary to introduce a Bill to reform the National Health Service. The first is straightforward: the Health Service is both big and bureaucratic. It is the biggest civilian employer in western Europe. Anything like that is bound to attract the disdain of a Government such as this, who do not like to respond to, or to have to deal with, any group in society that can wield the kind of power that the National Health Service can.
Secondly, and derived from that, the Bill is a response to political frustration. After 10 years of being told that the Government are spending more, employing more, treating more and building more, the public do not believe them. From the evidence in their own communities, the public do not believe the rhetoric of Ministers at the Dispatch Box. Largely out of the sense of frustration, the Prime Minister insisted on a political and legislative response. She split the Department of Health from the Department of Social Security, downgrading the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. She then dismissed him and brought back the previous Minister for Health, who has had to pull together this ill-assorted ragbag of ideas and try to present it as a coherent political philosophy when, in its basic analysis, it is not, because it is a response to political rather than patient needs.
My principal objection to the Bill is that it seeks to impose on the main providers of health care a costly and untried administrative structure, which is designed in the first instance not to improve health care or to increase the resources given to health care, but to impose a sense of structured competition in a totally inappropriate form and setting. In so doing, Ministers have made it clear that they do not have sufficient regard for the professionals who are the Health Service or, indeed, for the patients who are dependent upon it. If they had, they would have built in throughout the Bill far more consultation and far more guaranteed representation for both those groups. At every stage at which these arguments have been raised—at times they have not just been Opposition arguments but have been supported by Government Back Benchers—they have been resisted throughout the Committee stage and the truncated Report stage in the last few days. I shall touch very briefly on a few of the issues that arise.
The National Health Service contracts will remove clinical responsibility from doctors. They will remove the proper voice in health care that I believe patients should have—I agree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir Michael McNair-Wilson), who has done so much in this field—and at the end of the day they will hand over final control and major decisions to administrators. That will create monopolies, which I suggest will add to costs.
Self-governing trusts will break the link between the community and the hospital, undermine planning in terms


of both health care and staffing, and force people to travel for treatment that they should rightly expect in their locality, not least in rural areas, without giving them or the staff any direct democratic say in the decisions.
General practitioner budgets, particularly in the light of the new GP contract, can only undermine the essence of the relationship between patient and doctor, which has been one of the greatest strengths of the NHS and is the interface—horrible word—between the vast bulk of the population and the family doctor service.
I agree with Government Back-Benchers that the Government have refused to write in a guarantee that drug budgets will never be used to reduce expenditure on drugs. The Minister gave some assurances at the Dispatch Box on this matter, but they do not appear in the Bill.
The Minister makes a face. I know the reason that the Secretary of State enunciated why they have been unwilling to write things in at certain times, but let us go beyond that on this question of drug budgets. This was a major opportunity to take a significant step forward down the line of generic substitution, of looking at patent life in a European Community context with a view to a better deal for the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry, which, at a time when our balance of trade is disappearing over the cliff, is one of the major net contributors to British exports. But, unfortunately, the Government have not chosen to go sufficiently down that road. This is an extremely sad missed opportunity.
On health authority membership, the Government announced earlier this week a shake-up in the membership of health authorities throughout England and Wales. It was a disgraceful announcement in terms of the number of people with proven links to the Conservative party—we have been over this before in the course of the Bill—and business backgrounds. I do not object to business backgrounds, but all too often the criterion for appointment, or, more important, the criterion for not reappointing somebody who has served on a health authority, is, first and foremost, their political orientation rather than their professional commitment to a good National Health Service.

Mr. McCartney: The position is that a majority of the members of our health authority do not live in, work in or belong to the community for which they are the authority. After this Bill is passed and local authority representation is removed, there will be a majority of people on that body who do not live or work in or have any connection with the community to which they are appointed.

Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is a serious and genuine complaint, which has been repeated in many other parts of the country. I can only say, given the difference in geography and demography between our two parts of the country, that I hope it does not begin to happen in the Scottish Highlands, because it would be farcical to have somebody sitting in Glasgow on the Highlands health board.

Mr. McCartney: A modern-day Highland clearance.

Mr. Kennedy: That is one way of putting it.
On the question of medical teaching—sadly, we were not able to come back to an all-party amendment on this matter on Report—there is, as the Minister knows, continuing concern and anxiety, particularly for the big teaching hospitals attached to and aligned with some of

our great universities, about the role of those who are both in the academic sector and aligned or attached to the National Health Service. The Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals has expressed particular concern about this. Given the educational lobby in another place, this is a matter on which the Government will be subjected to significant scrutiny, and I hope that there will be constructive amendment at that stage in the Bill.
I come to medical practice committees. The hon. Member for Northampton, South had some caustic remarks to make about this and I quite agree with him that it is gratuitous and unnecessary to take powers to reduce the number of doctors, if necessary by imposing directions on the MPCs. In particular, it will be disadvantageous to both the inner cities and the rural areas. It is striking at one of the real success stories in the British Health Service since 1947, which is the growth in the number of general practitioners and the expansion of the family doctor service in accessible areas in every community.
Rural dispensing committees are also abolished—a decision made by the House with hardly any discussion, which is not at all a good way to go about legislation.
Coming, finally, to the community care section. while the principles behind it are welcome, even though the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming over the Rubicon, not least where local authority input is concerned, and only after excessive delay, there is no provision, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), the distinguished Vice-Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Services, made clear, for ring fencing, an essential concept of the Griffiths report. There are no national standards.
The provision for the funding of residential homes is known by all—indeed, at one stage earlier this week, for a few magic moments, by a majority of the House—-to be inadequate. There is no proper provision for carers and, in the context of one of the admittedly more minor amendments that was moved last night, no proper protection yet for residents in homes of four people or fewer through their being subject to proper scrutiny by the inspectorate. Within Scotland, there are no moves to introduce a proper inspectorate.
This Bill has been a response to political pressure. It has been born out of governmental frustration rather than a genuine, formative effort to improve the National Health Service. It did not feature as a manifesto commitment I think that the Government are wildly out of touch with so much connected with this measure, and that they will reap the return from that at the ballot box in the next election.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I felt very privileged to take part in the work of the Committee that considered this Bill because I believe that it is one of the most important Bills going through the House in this Parliament, in the essential sense that it will have an enormous impact on the welfare and, indeed, the lives of our constituents.
I paid great attention to the Report stage and it is now clear to the House, and will be clear to the country, that the essential political difference between the parties in this House on the Bill is extremely simple. On the one side, the Government have decided that, after 40 years, it would be sensible to introduce a number of radical reforms into the


NHS, not merely or even largely to improve the efficiency of the service, although improving value for money becomes ever more important the more money is allocated to the NHS and the greater the share of the Government's budget and of national income is absorbed by the NHS. But it is also necessary to get rid of some of the major perversities that have emerged within the operations of the NHS. Those perversities have, for example, led to a number of hospital managers having an incentive to reduce the throughput of their hospitals and to local authorities feeling that there is an incentive to dump people into institutional care as a first, rather than a last, resort.
One of the great human benefits of this Bill will be that, for the first time, an attempt will be made to assess individual needs and, wherever possible, to support people in their own homes rather than consign them to institutional care, however dedicated and competent that care may be. The Government believe that it is now possible to introduce into the National Health Service a greater measure of patient choice and to make the system fundamentally more responsive to patient needs and demands.
The Opposition's position has been equally clear. Throughout the discussion on this Bill, in Committee and on Report, the Opposition have opposed, almost in every particular, any change in the 1948 structure—as though it were a crime even to touch that structure, and as though that structure represented a sacred totem. Perhaps to certain hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies of the Opposition it is a sacred totem. To a visitor unfamiliar with the British political debate it might seem that such blind defence of the NHS reflected a very large measure of satisfaction with the workings of the service. Of course, we know that nothing could be further from the truth. Throughout this Parliament the Opposition have subjected us to an endless litany of complaints about its operation. How does the Labour party explain this fundamental contradiction—on the one side, defence of the NHS in its present form, and on the other, the most serious, and often vituperative, complaints against its operation?

Mrs. Alice Mahon: In respect of the complaints against the NHS, we say to the Government quite simply, "Fund it properly."

Mr. Davies: I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned funding. That is precisely how the Labour party, at least during the first two years of this Parliament, attempted to reconcile the contradiction to which I have drawn attention. We all remember how, in 1987, 1988 and 1989, we continually heard from the Opposition the suggestion that there was nothing wrong with the NHS except that it needed more money—as though throwing more money at it would solve its problems. Over the past two years something very interesting has happened. In 1988 Opposition leaders were regularly calling for the expenditure of another £1 billion or another £2 billion on the service—some Opposition Members seem to like multiplying round figures. In fact, the Government have come forward with £3 billion, £4 billion and £5 billion more.

Mr. Chris Mullin: rose——

Mr. Davies: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I have observed—I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is about to intervene will show that I am right—that recently the Opposition have ceased their attempts to outbid the Government in respect of financial plans for the NHS.

Mr. Mullin: It is not just the Opposition who have been saying that the Health Service is underfunded. According to the local Tory newspaper in Sunderland, the chairman of the Northern regional health authority, who was appointed by the Government, said last week:
Fundamentally we are underfunded consistently. It is absolutely frustrating to feel so useless.
The person who made that comment is not a supporter of the Labour party.

Mr. Davies: Had the Government accepted the funding arrangements that the Labour party suggested for the NHS two years ago, the service would be funded at a lower rate today than is actually the case. The increase in expenditure on the service has been considerably greater than was demanded by the Opposition only two years ago.
Throughout the Committee stage and Report stage debates I listened with great attention, but entirely in vain, for the slightest suggestion by Opposition Members that if, by mischance, they were to come to power they would spend more on the NHS than the Government are planning to spend. I will give way to any hon. Member who is prepared to give a specific commitment to spend on the NHS more than the Government are currently planning to spend. I notice that not a single Opposition Member—least of all, the hon. Member for Monklands. West (Mr. Clarke)—is attempting to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, or mine with a view to answering that challenge.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) drew attention to the ruse by which the Labour party attempts to cover the contradiction in its attitude towards the NHS. That party gives the impression that, somehow, it will come up with more money than the Government have provided. That notion has been exploded, and, against this background, the Labour party's opposition to every element of the reforms being suggested by the Government is fundamentally mindless.

Mr. Frank Field: If even half of the hon. Gentleman's assertions are true, it must be galling for him. He is telling us how much the Government are spending on the NHS, but no one outside believes him. It is absurd to try to get the Opposition to outbid the Government on the question of funding arrangements. This Bill is about the delivery of health care. Our stance is that the Health Service has been a tremendous success story. Let us set the proportion of GNP spent on the Health Service against mortality and morbidity rates. Britain gets a good deal, and the electorate understands that. Surely it would be sensible to ask in what ways we can improve the service. Instead, what we have is a pig-headed decision that certain schemes, without even having been tried out, are to be introduced on a massive scale. I am therefore grateful for the hon. Gentleman's contribution. I hope that many people outside are listening, because the more he says, the fewer there will be who think that the Health Service is safe in his and his hon. Friends' hands.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of important points which I am only too pleased to address. I am glad that he, too, has come to the conclusion


that it would be pointless to conduct this debate on the basis of the two sides trying to outbid each other in terms of promised NHS expenditure. That would indeed be futile. I believe that the Labour party's commitments have lost all credibility. Nevertheless. I repeat that there is a fundamental contradiction between the Opposition's defence of the NHS in its present form and their continuing complaints about the workings of the service. The only answer that the Opposition can give is to say that the problem is one of funding and that they are in a special position to resolve that problem. Now that the Labour party has dropped the claim that it will spend more money on the NHS, that means of reconciling the contradiction falls away. Thus is exposed the hollowness of the arguments that we have heard throughout this debate.
I have the highest regard for the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but I hope that, before we next have a debate on Health Service matters, he will spend a little time in the Library. I urge him in particular to look at the OECD figures on life expectancy and infant mortality of which, obviously, he is unaware. In 1948, when the National Health Service was introduced, this country was in the OECD's top quartile for life expectancy, for men and women, and in the bottom quartile for infant mortality. We are now in one of the two most unfavourable quartiles in respect of both. That is a serious relative deterioration in the general health of the British population. I say "relative" because, in absolute terms, the health of the population has improved greatly.

Mr. Frank Field: It is slightly barmy to make such comparisons. In the period after the second world war much of Europe was starving. Therefore, we would expect that to show up, particularly in the infant mortality figures. It is not comparing like with like to compare us with the rest of Europe in that period and then at present.

Mr. Davies: It is a good rule that one should attempt to display elementary familiarity with figures before one quotes them in the House.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the startling discrepancy in expectation of life within quite a small region? For example, the expectation of life in the north-west as a whole is well below the national average, whereas in Lancaster it is above the national average because we run our affairs properly. That is one of the fallacies of the National Health Service. There are enormous discrepancies even between adjoining districts. That is one problem which the Bill will address and cure.

Mr. Davies: I congratulate my hon. Friend on health achievements in her constituency.
I welcome the Bill not because it enshrines some useful reforms but because the Government have resisted the temptation to replace one monolithic, global, systematic structure, introduced in 1948 and apparently valid for all time, with another monolithic, global, systematic structure, also apparently valid for all time. The Government have adopted an extremely pragmatic approach and have introduced a number of radical but specific reforms into a structure that continues to enshrine the basic principles of the NHS.
The Government have not been afraid to look round the world and to learn from foreign experience when it had something to teach us. To a certain extent, the

fund-holding practice concept owes something to the system of health management organisations in the United States. Clearly, the introduction of self-governing hospitals will produce a structure more akin to that in continental countries such as France and Germany.
The Government have also learnt from analyses over many years of the experience of the NHS. Elements of the Bill reflect some of the thinking of Professor Enthoven in his famous report and reflect his concept of an internal market. They also reflect much of the thinking which that report inspired.
The Bill brings in useful and vital reforms. I have already mentioned some. If their operation is properly monitored and controlled, they should provide a basis for continuing uprating of the National Health Service. That is vital because we cannot legislate for the NHS once and for all and then forget about it for the next 40 years. It deserves, and will receive, detailed continuing attention. The Government did a good day's work for the country when they introduced the Bill, and I am proud to support it.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): The debate has demonstrated graphically the ideological gulf between the Government and the Opposition. Unfortunately, the Minister, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), used the debate simply as debating practice. It seemed as though he wanted to earn brownie points from his friends on the Front Bench rather than tell us about the merits or demerits of the measure. I contrast that speech—34 minutes of doing nothing other than baiting the Labour party—with the compassionate speech of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). He and I share a background from which we can say that the National Health Service is part of our heritage. We are conscious that the Bill will undermine the philosophy upon which the Health Service was founded.
One reason why the hon. Member for Stirling refused to give way to Opposition Members was that he forgot to tell the House that, despite the fact that the Government have introduced a number of sweeteners to persuade doctors to accept budgets, we still get letters from the British Medical Association telling us that the proposals for budgets are flawed. The BMA also tells us that support for the Bill, even among Conservative voters, is declining dramatically and that a majority of Conservative voters do not believe the Government's rhetoric.
In Committee I was concerned about the way in which Ministers defended the principle of setting up NHS trusts. The Government referred to them as centres of excellence. None of us wants any hospital to be other than a centre of excellence. If hospitals are compared, and one is regarded as a centre of excellence, it must mean that the others are not. We are worried because the principle enshrined in the Bill will create two tiers of hospitals. The hospitals which become trusts will become centrepieces of the Government's new philosophy, while other hospitals will be starved of cash.
The desperate shortages in key services and key personnel within the Health Service have not yet been addressed on Third Reading. There is a shortage of physiotherapists, clinicians, speech therapists, occupational therapists, community psychiatric nurses and pharmacists. The position in speech therapy is disgraceful.


Speech therapists are paid less than almost every other similar profession. Speech therapists are despondent because, after four, five or six years of training, they have no proper career structure and their work is not properly valued by the Government, because they are grossly underpaid.
In recent months I have spoken to speech therapists who are so disgruntled about their pay that they are changing profession and becoming teachers. How can that be in the interests of the Health Service? Teachers are underpaid, yet speech therapists are moving to that profession. I urge the Government to do something about rates of pay for speech therapists. Many health authorities are in a Catch 22 position. Even if they had the cash to employ more speech therapists, not enough people are going into training. I urge the Government to consider that.
On the NHS side of the Bill, the philosophy of contracting within the new Health Service after 1991 will be meaningless in rural areas. Even if NHS trusts are established, there will be no opportunity for a meaningful relationship between a hospital and the provision of services by contract. By their very nature, hospitals in rural areas are monopolistic. There cannot be competition between them. The provisions on the setting up of NHS trusts are irrelevant to the people of Wales.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak, but I wish to touch briefly on community care. Although I welcome in principle the provision transferring assessment procedures to local authorities, I am concerned whether there will be proper funding for the service.
I commend to the House the words of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) who is the Vice-Chairman of the Social Services Select Committee. He quoted from Sir Roy Griffiths's report on ring fencing. I would also like to quote from the social services inspectorate report on the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. The summary of the report says of funding:
The lack of resources made available by Central Government (despite provision for the Act being made in recent Rate Support Grant settlements) was a reason given by a number of SSDs to explain why they had allocated little, or not as much as they would have liked, to the operation of the Act.
That must be a case for ring fencing. Although the Government have made general provision, under the rate support grant, for allocation of funds, local authorities have found themselves constrained and have failed to send the resources where they should have gone—to implement the 1986 Act. The only answer to that is ring fencing.
I appreciate the point made by the Minister in Committee about the danger of eroding the independence of social services departments and local authorities in how they allocate their funds. However, the other cases are unanswerable. The rate support grant system means that local authorities will have to prioritise their spending. I urge the Government to think again to ensure that the grants for social services departments are ring-fenced for community care.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Unlike the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), I do not believe that the genesis of the Bill came from the desk of some Right-wing ideologue in the Adam Smith Institute.

Mr. Robin Cook: You know them all.

Mr. Leigh: I do not know them all. With my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), I wrote a booklet for the No Turning Back group. We were the first to talk about the principle of money following the patient. That was not the genesis of the Bill: that lies in the creation of the National Health Service.
No one doubts the sincerity of the Labour party's defence of the NHS. It views the NHS as a monument to Socialism—and there are precious few left. I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) in his seat. I remember him saying that he wished that the wartime spirit could return. Actually, the creation of the NHS was less the work of the Attlee Government than that of the wartime coalition and the Beveridge report.
I say that the genesis of the Bill lies in those days, and not in the work of some ideologue, because the NHS badly needs reforming and modernisation.

Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leigh: I will not give way; I have only two or three minutes.
The principle of the NHS is based on a highly centralised structure, which was common in those days in all our nationalised industries and, indeed, in Government Departments. That structure has developed into the regional and district health authorities that we know so well, and it is now creaking at the joints. I suspect that, if we were now faced with a Labour Government, they would be implementing many of the reforms that we are discussing today. No one who looked into a crystal ball in 1979 would have believed that, 10 years later, a Conservative Government would be spending £28 billion on the NHS—more than they spend on defence. No one would have believed it possible that we would now be treating 30,000 more patients every week than 10 years ago. However, those are the facts.
This debate is not about ideology, but about balancing priorities with resources. The Bill is—I hope the phrase is appropriate—a fundamentally and gradualist and Fabian measure. It is not a radical privatising measure, by any stretch of the imagination. Let us look at the core elements of the Bill—for instance, indicative drug budgets. The genesis of that proposal lies in the cash limits that the last Labour Government placed on health authorities, but these are not even cash limits. Is it unreasonable for the House—the guardian of the £28 billion that we give on behalf of our constituents to the providers of the NHS—to insist on accountability and cost control? That is the essence of indicative drug budgets.
Nor do I think it unreasonable for us to seek to modernise the NHS by bringing more choice and accountability down to the grass roots and away from the centralised structures to which I have referred. That is the basis of self-governing hospitals and of fund-holding practices. There is nothing radical in the Bill, in the sense


of NHS privatisation. The Bill will introduce a more businesslike approach, but it is not about making the NHS into a business.
I regret the phrase "internal market", because it sets the alarm bells ringing on the Opposition Benches. We were not talking about an internal market; in a sense, that is a contradiction in terms. We were talking about providing a better service for the public. The Bill will achieve that, and that is why I will support it tonight.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has confirmed my conviction that all Conservative Members who made serious speeches either had strong reservations about the Bill or—in at least in one case—opposed it.
In a telling withering speech, the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris)—who was interrupted by several hon. Members who had not even heard the speech—gave an analysis of the Bill that I considered profound. He said that the Government have failed to take the people with them: surely that is self-evident. It is one of the problems that we have in trying to ensure a reasonable debate on the Bill.
The Bill is the baby—many would say the folly—of the Secretary of State for Health. We attempted in Committee—whatever he has said since—to be constructive and helpful, and to offer alternatives. However, none of our amendments was accepted. That is not surprising because of the self-imposed infallibility of the Secretary of State, which is—so far as I know—shared only by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). However, we in Scotland understand that aberration, even if we do not agree with it.
The Secretary of State's obsession is not surprising. After all, he told The Independent on 25 September 1989:
I have been spectacularly more successful than any of my predecessors.
When a Gallup poll commissioned by the British Medical Association suggested——

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Read on.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I will be even fairer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman by quoting what he told The Daily Telegraph——

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: rose——

Mr. Tom Clarke: I will not give way to the Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland spoke for 34 minutes, and would not give way to me. My speech is much shorter. I am being fair to the Secretary of State by quoting what he said to The Daily Telegraph so that we fully understand his approach to these matters. When a Gallup poll commissioned by the BMA suggested that only 15 per cent. of all voters approved of the Government's proposals, the Secretary of State said:
That poll shows that three out of four people are mistaken.
I will now reluctantly give way to the Secretary of State, but it will be the last time, in view of the limitation that the Government have imposed on me as well as on other hon. Members.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is free to criticise my views, but he should not take half-sentences to attribute ridiculous allusions to me. On his first point, he

knows that I said that I had been more spectacularly successful than any of my predecessors in achieving increased spending on the National Health Service out of the Treasury. That is factually correct. I did not make other generalised boasts, as the hon. Gentleman made it sound.
On the second matter, the hon. Gentleman knows that I explained that poll by saying that it measured the success of the BMA in misleading the public and therefore leading to so many members of the public being mistaken. I do not object to the hon. Gentleman attacking my views fairly, but using half sentences in such a ridiculous fashion does not help anybody.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The House will respect my view that the injury time that the Secretary of State has taken might be deducted from the Minister when he replies to the debate. I have no desire to distort the views of the Secretary of State. Why should I? Last night, despite his fine words, there was massive support for our modest new clause. But he persuaded enough of his troops to oppose it and to support him after what had been a squalid response on his part.
There are no positive measures in the Bill to deal not just with the crisis in the NHS, which hon. Members in all parts of the House have identified, but with the enormous problem of community care, to which the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) referred in some detail. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) was right to draw attention to the Government's disgraceful approach to the non-implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
If the Government really believe in community care, they have the basis on which to work, and in that respect they need not listen only to me. The Department's inspectorate produced a devastating report about non-implementation and the Government's disgraceful role in that lethargy. I invite the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland 10 try to defend themselves against what is said in that report about their lethargy. Despite the Government's fine words, there is nothing in the Bill for carers. The Government regard care as a commodity; carers are part of the market philosophy which we are supposed to support.
Our debates in Committee confirmed that we are confronted by a Government who will not listen. Not only will they not listen to hon. Members, but they will not even take note of what was said in the Griffiths report. It is not surprising that we said little about community care in Committee and in this restricted debate on the Floor of the House. After the Griffiths report was submitted, the Government held on to it for 20 months before commenting. Then they tried to find every way possible round the report's central recommendations.
Although the lack of debate about Griffiths and community care is no accident, we are still left with the problems of community care—of people leaving long-stay psychiatric hospitals and going into non-existent community care, of the trenchant criticisms of the Audit Commission, of the reality of people who must live in cardboard homes with cardboard hopes. Faced with those problems, the Secretary of State is like a man caught between washing and wringing his hands and offering no positive response. My hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) made that clear in their remarks.
We invited the Secretary of State to address the important issues involved in community care, to which Griffiths and others referred, and to do so on a level playing field. We met with no success, even though the right hon. and learned Gentleman claims to be committed to the mixed economy.
Between the statutory and independent sectors, all the advantages are going to the private sector. If anybody doubted that, proof came in the debate on income support. With income support and housing benefit denied to local authorities, the Government—although they say that they understand the problem—are so dogmatic, even on that issue, that they will not take on board the will of the House.
A few hours after that debate and the House taking its decision, some of us saw on television the Secretary of State for Social Security. I admit that it was a confusing time and that he did not appreciate why such a strong rebellion had taken place. Like many, I found his interview unusual and I did not understand what he said. Indeed, I got the feeling when the interviewer asked
Mr. Newton, how are you going to respond to this decision?
that not even Isaac Newton could have understood what the Secretary of State was trying to tell us.
The issues that have been raised on community care are absolutely clear, even though the Government pretend that they are not. The case for ring fencing—for earmarking funds—is overwhelming, and it is shameful of the Government not to have accepted that view. In their rejection of the mixed economy in a real sense and in their attitude to proper provision for local authorities, the Government are influenced overwhelmingly by dogma, as we have witnessed in other areas of Conservative legislation. We saw it with the social fund, and the difficulties that local authorities, voluntary organisations and others are facing with the social fund apply to the Bill.
That is why it is not surprising that the voluntary organisations are reminding us that the Government are declining to accept their responsibilities. The Spastics Society, the YMCA and the Salvation Army tell us that they are bursting at the seams because the Government, having failed to accept their responsibilities, are leaving it to the wider community—to charities and others, everybody but themselves—and are adopting a mean-minded approach which the British people find thoroughly unacceptable.
We have in the measure not one but four Bills. We have had one on health and community care for England and Wales, and likewise one for Scotland. Nobody can pretend that there was adequate consultation or that the views of the people of those nations were taken into account by the Government before bringing their proposals forward. When Conservative Members objected even to the short debates initiated by my Scottish and Welsh hon. Friends, English Members who were fair-minded enough to listen to those debates found that they were constructive, and they confirmed that more time should have been provided for discussion of the Scottish and Welsh issues raised by the Bill.
The opinion polls show that the Bill has little support among the people. That applies to the provisions on opting out, to what the Government have said about the role of junior doctors and to cash limits for drugs——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There is none.

Mr. Clarke: If there is none, why is that not written into the Bill? The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland have been at their most unconvincing on that point, when they have pretended that on those matters the British public have been misled and that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), brilliant though he has been, has persuaded 55 million people about something. If the Government really believe what they have been saying, why have they not been prepared to write it into the Bill? I shall tell the House why.
One of the most compelling speeches that I have heard in our ridiculously restricted debates was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) yesterday. He referred to the debate in July 1946 when Aneurin Bevan, introducing the concept of the National Health Service into the House, said:
Quite frankly, I do not believe that they ever intended to have a universal health service."—[Official Report, 26 July 1946; Vol. 426, c. 467.]
Those words are just as true in 1990 as they were in 1946, and the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends know it.
There is a colossal division of opinion about the NHS. There is a great gap between the Government and the Opposition, as Opposition Members have said both in Committee and today. In fairness to several Conservative Members, it is clear that many of them do not go along with the Bill either. I only hope that they will join us in the Division Lobby tonight. But the battle will go on beyond that. It must go on because we are committed to keeping, improving and expanding the National Health Service as Nye Bevan saw it. We wish to introduce real community care supported by the community, not based on the "community couldn't care less" attitude and the prospect of community neglect which we find unacceptable.
There is another aspect to that difference of philosophy. The Prime Minister has said:
Let our children grow tall—and some grow taller than others.
The Bill is a continuation of that logic. It is the catechism of inequality—let our people grow old and some will be better cared for than others; let our people go sick and some will have better provision than others; let people develop disabilities and some will be supported and some not; let people care for their elderly or sick relatives and we shall ignore them.
We are sending to another place a Bill which has been inadequately debated and the subject of the minimum consultation which amounted to a sham. It is a mean-minded Bill which is fatally flawed, unworthy of the House, and repugnant to the vast mass of the British people. In asking the House to oppose Third Reading, the Opposition send a clear signal to all the people of Britain that the forthcoming Labour Government will remove this shabby measure from the statute book with the speed and urgency that its miserable contents invite.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The Bill was introduced into the House on 7 December last year by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. It has had some three and a half months of detailed debate and scrutiny. On behalf of the Government, I thank all hon. Members from both sides of the House who have made constructive comments during the passage of the Bill. I


particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) for their powerful speeches in support of the Bill on Third Reading.
The Bill is based on five key principles. It might be helpful to run over them. First, it is based above all on the need to provide better patient care. The patient comes first and last. [HON. MEMBERS: "Last."] No, the patient comes first and last.
Secondly, the NHS will continue to be financed under the Conservative Government by the taxpayer and it will he largely free at the point of delivery. It will remain a universal Health Service. The myth repeated again tonight by the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) that there is a hidden agenda and that we intend to privatise the Health Service is not true. The Health Service will remain a national service, financed from public funds and available to all. The public do not want the NHS to be privatised and they will not be given a privatised NHS.
We have heard nonsense about hospitals opting out of the NHS for three and a half months. It is not true. We are delegating greater authority to hospitals, and hospitals to be known as NHS trusts—indeed, units other than hospitals—will have greater freedom to operate but will remain in the NHS.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), who is here, made a powerful speech on Second Reading and again tonight. We all respect his views. He is in a minority. (HON. MEMBERS: "Is he?"] We shall see whether he is in a minority. His argument that the family practitioner service is to be cash-limited is simply not true. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have given him an assurance on many occasions that the drug service will not be cash-limited, neither at doctor, family practitioner, regional nor national level. I repeat that assurance.
In 1990–91 the family practitioner service is forecast to grow in cash terms by almost 13 per cent. That reflects the fact that there are pressures each year for more and better drugs, which cost more in real terms. It is not our intention to cut the drug budget in real terms—it will continue to grow. But we intend to bring downward pressure on the rate of growth of the drug budget. I believe that many doctors will agree that clinical responsibility can and should march side by side with doctors accepting financial responsibility. It is no longer reasonable to argue that, whether they work in general practice or the hospital service, doctors should have no account of the costs of the service. It is unrealistic.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeman: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be brief, because of the limitation on time.

Mr. Morris: I am conscious of the limitation on time. Before this Bill leaves the House of Commons and, therefore, before the Minister concludes his speech, can we have a definitive statement of the Government's attitude to the plight of poor, vulnerable and elderly people in residential homes who face eviction? The Minister will recall that new clause 1 on that subject was carried with all-party support. Can he at least, before concluding the

debate, give an assurance that there will be no evictions? Can he also make a statement on the Government's attitude to the whole issue?

Mr. Freeman: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's position. The House has voted and declared its position clearly on the matter. He will know that it is a prime responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. He said clearly at the Dispatch Box that he understood the feelings of the House. In due course and at the right time and place he will lay before the House and develop the thoughts that he outlined during that debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury was absolutely right about the third principle behind the Bill, which is better value for money. In response to a seated intervention from the hon. Member for Sheffield. Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), he said that improving the quality of the NHS is not only about more money. The Government have provided more money. It is about managing resources better. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Hon. Members may groan but it is absolutely true. Many countries around the world envy the National Health Service because it provides good value for money—it is an excellent service—but we are interested in and admire the steps that we are taking to get even better value for money.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said that the National Health Service "is not inefficient". I hope that he is not burying his head in the sand and saying that no measures to improve the efficiency of the National Health Service are appropriate; of course they are. We need to get better value for money from the £30 billion of resources that we put in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said.
The fourth principle is that we need to provide—and will provide—greater choice for patients, not only in the selection of their general practitioners but in elective surgery and in the hospital to which they go which may not be their own local hospital. The agreement and approval of the patient is required before he travels to another hospital, but it is humane and sensible to offer him the chance to do so because that will reduce waiting times for others at hospitals which are not so fortunate. That is a sensible measure, which will improve the quality of care.
Moreover, we are offering choice for the elderly—real choice this time. That is something about which the hon. Member for Wakefield and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) have expressed concern. I shall come later to my hon. Friend's point about ring-fencing. We shall be offering real choice to the frail elderly rather than simply the choice of going into residential care. We intend them to have a real choice between staying at home with proper domiciliary care and going into residential care.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh raised an important point about ring fencing, which was not addressed at length in the debate. He raised the matter on Second Reading and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my ministerial colleagues carefully considered his arguments. In fairness, there are two important arguments against ring fencing in relation to the care of the frail elderly and the mentally handicapped that my hon. Friend did not address. First, there is no evidence that personal social services depts are in any way faring badly in relation to other local government departments in


terms of the relative share of resources that is available to them. There is no evidence that money is being diverted into other activities.
Secondly, if we pursued my hon. Friend's argument to its logical conclusion, all aspects of expenditure by social services departments would have to be ring-fenced. That would be a complete denial of the responsibility and flexibility that we have awarded to local authorities.

Sir David Price: rose——

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way; I am just about to conclude my remarks.
We believe strongly that flexibility in local authorities should be preserved.
The fifth and last general principle concerns the delegation of authority in the National Health Service. That is what lies behind our proposals. We are talking about delegation not to, but from, the Secretary of State—to the National Health Service trusts, to general practice fund holders and to smaller, more businesslike district health authorities. We have great confidence in the staff who work in the Health Service, of whom there are almost I million. That is why we propose to delegate greater authority to them.
We have heard almost no constructive suggestions from the Opposition about reforming the National Health Service. The solution of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is simply to throw more cash at it. The only two commitments that I can find in the Labour party's election manifesto are to the abolition of compulsory competitive tendering, which would cost £100 million, and to steps that would lead inevitably to the abolition of private medicine and income generation in the Health Service, which would cost a further £100 million. The first consequence of the hon. Gentleman's appointment as Secretary of State for Health—which will not happen—would be the loss of £200 million, or £1 million on average per district health authority. As for the suggestion of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) that we should have activity budgets, it is not well thought out. The Labour party has not explained where the money is coming from to fund greater activity in hospitals. But our proposals for money to follow patients are well thought out.
We are confident that at the next general election, the only poll that counts, the public will realise that our reforms—-which will have been in place for two years in the case of the general contract and one year in the case of the reforms themselves—have worked and are beneficial. Not only is the National Health Service safe in our hands; it will become a better National Health Service in our hands. I invite the whole House, especially my hon. Friends, to support the Bill.

Mr. Alfred Morris: There is scant time left, but the House ought to have a definitive statement from the Government about their attitude to an amendment—new clause 1—that was supported on both sides of the House, the case for which was brilliantly argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The proposal had all-party support. Before

the conclusion of the debate, can we at least have the plain assurance that no elderly person will be evicted from residential care simply because he or she lacks money?

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the resolution [14 March].

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 215.

Division No. 131]
[7. 26 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Aitken, Jonathan
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Bob


Allason, Rupert
Durant, Tony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Eggar, Tim


Amess, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Amos, Alan
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arbuthnot, James
Evennett, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Farr, Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Favell, Tony


Baldry, Tony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bellingham, Henry
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forth, Eric


Benyon, W.
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Freeman, Roger


Body, Sir Richard
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gorst, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gregory, Conal


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grist, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Ground, Patrick


Budgen, Nicholas
Grylls, Michael


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Butler, Chris
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayward, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hind, Kenneth


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Colvin, Michael
Holt, Richard


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Couchman, James
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cran, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Curry, David
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Irvine, Michael


Day, Stephen
Irving, Sir Charles


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael






Jackson, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Janman, Tim
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jessel, Toby
Portillo, Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Price, Sir David


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Raffan, Keith


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rathbone, Tim


Key, Robert
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Riddick, Graham


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knapman, Roger
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rost, Peter


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rowe, Andrew


Knowles, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knox, David
Ryder, Richard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lang, Ian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Latham, Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shelton, Sir William


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lord, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Speed, Keith


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Speller, Tony


Maclean, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Squire, Robin


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Madel, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malins, Humfrey
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stevens, Lewis


Maples, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Summerson, Hugo


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mellor, David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miller, Sir Hal
Thorne, Neil


Mills, Iain
Thornton, Malcolm


Miscampbell, Norman
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mitchell, Sir David
Tracey, Richard


Moate, Roger
Tredinnick, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Trippier, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Moore, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moss, Malcolm
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Neale, Gerrard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nelson, Anthony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Neubert, Michael
Walden, George


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Norris, Steve
Ward, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wells, Bowen


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wheeler, Sir John


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Paice, James
Wilkinson, John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wilshire, David


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Wolfson, Mark


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Pawsey, James
Woodcock, Dr. Mike





Yeo, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Younger, Rt Hon George





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Allen, Graham
George, Bruce


Alton, David
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Anderson, Donald
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Golding, Mrs Llin


Armstrong, Hilary
Gordon, Mildred


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gould, Bryan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Graham, Thomas


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Barron, Kevin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Battle, John
Harman, Ms Harriet


Beckett, Margaret
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Beith, A. J.
Heffer, Eric S.


Bell, Stuart
Henderson, Doug


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boateng, Paul
Home Robertson, John


Boyes, Roland
Hood, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hoyle, Doug


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Janner, Greville


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cartwright, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clay, Bob
Kennedy, Charles


Clelland, David
Kilfedder, James


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kirkwood, Archy


Cohen, Harry
Lamond, James


Coleman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Leighton, Ron


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Corbett, Robin
Lewis, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Cox, Tom
Livsey, Richard


Crowther, Stan
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cryer, Bob
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cummings, John
Loyden, Eddie


Cunningham, Dr John
McAllion, John


Darling, Alistair
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McCartney, Ian


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McFall, John


Dewar, Donald
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dixon, Don
McKelvey, William


Dobson, Frank
McLeish, Henry


Doran, Frank
Maclennan, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
McNamara, Kevin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Madden, Max


Eadie, Alexander
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fatchett, Derek
Marek, Dr John


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fearn, Ronald
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Martlew, Eric


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Maxton, John


Fisher, Mark
Meale, Alan


Flannery, Martin
Michael, Alun


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Foster, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Foulkes, George
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fraser, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fyfe, Maria
Morgan, Rhodri


Galloway, George
Morley, Elliot






Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Murphy, Paul
Soley, Clive


Nellist, Dave
Spearing, Nigel


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


O'Brien, William
Steinberg, Gerry


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stott, Roger


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Strang, Gavin


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pike, Peter L.
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Prescott, John
Turner, Dennis


Primarolo, Dawn
Wallace, James


Quin, Ms Joyce
Walley, Joan


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Randall, Stuart
Wareing, Robert N.


Redmond, Martin
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Reid, Dr John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Richardson, Jo
Wigley, Dafydd


Robertson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rogers, Allan
Wilson, Brian


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Winterton, Nicholas


Ruddock, Joan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Salmond, Alex
Worthington, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Short, Clare



Sillars, Jim

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill is essentially a Government measure. It is a public measure. It is part of Government policy to privatise the ports of the land.
The Minister for Aviation and Shipping, who is in his place now, has made various statements to the effect that the Government cannot find time to put these privatisation measures through the House properly. He has therefore urged companies or authorities such as the Tees and Hartlepool port authority to use the private route. Similar statements were made by the previous Secretary of State for Transport. Two years ago, he urged the docks, including Tees and Hartlepool, to take the private route. That was confirmed by the Minister for Aviation and Shipping.
My submission to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that this should not be private business. Lord Graham made the same point earlier in the week in another place. He said that the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill that was before the other place should not be dealt with in this way. We believe that it is an abuse by the Executive of the legislature and that by means of private business the Executive are endeavouring to implement Government business.

Sir Michael Shaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the procedure is absolutely correct in this instance. My hon. Friends——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It would be more appropriate for the Chair to rule on whether the procedure is appropriate.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for having given notice that he intended to raise the point. Mr. Speaker has considered the matter. He is satisfied that the Bill is proper to be proceeded with as a private Bill, since it is concerned with the regulation of an authority that was established by means of a private Act. If hon. Members consider that it is undesirable for the change of status of the authority to be brought about in this way, their appropriate course is to vote against the measure.

Mr. Richard Holt: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When the Tees Navigation Act was passed in 1808, the position was slightly different from what it is today. There was a clear and essential need to establish an effective management body to help the traders on Teesside to develop their foreign and domestic trade. However, ever since 1808 there has been state regulation of the port.
It is interesting to note from a historical point of view that the people who were originally entrusted by law in 1808 with looking after the well-being of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority's predecessor were the 44 burgesses who were riparian owners of the land on either side of the river. In this age of feminine equality, it is


interesting to note that four of the 44 were ladies. That shows that, in the north-east, we were ahead of the game then, as we are ahead of the game now.
The parallel with the present is relevant. The trade prospects for this community, and for the north-east as a whole, are being restricted. This fresh initiative will sweep away the legislative shackles which are restricting the development of trade.
The docks under the control of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority have changed beyond all recognition, but the legal restrictions on its activities are essentially the same as they have been for 180 years. The movement of goods through the European market is now dominated by the requirement of manufacturers and customers for door-to-door, time-definite deliveries. Port facilities are no longer gateways between home and foreign markets but links in a continuous transport chain within a single worldwide market. Ports cannot stand still in the face of change.
The Bill will change the status of the authority to that of a normal commercial enterprise and will release it from the constraints of "trust" status. Only then can our third largest port compete effectively in the modern world of a single European market.
Trust ports are a peculiarly British concept. They are to be found only in this country. They have developed by virtue of circumstances rather than as a result of any express policy or planned development. The ports of Tees and Hartlepool together handle between 30 million and 40 million tonnes of goods each year—mainly oil, ore, cars, steel, forest products and containers. They form the third largest port undertaking in the United Kingdom, coming only after London and Sullom Voe, and employ 828 people.
At present, the authority is allowed to use its money only to maintain the ports. It could, if it wished, gold-plate the cranes on the quayside. It has enough money to do so. In his Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) described the authority as being run in an exemplary fashion, with an impressive record by any standards. Despite that commercial success, within its present limitations the law prevents it from expanding. The port has the potential to become a driving force for commercial expansion in the north-east, creating new wealth and new jobs.

Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman emphasised the fact that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority can invest only in port-related activities or in port development. However, in 1984–85, the port authority did not feel that it was bound by the alleged restriction and invested in property, finance, aviation, air travel, timber importing, transport, display signs, storage, security fencing and engineering. If the restrictions are as tight as the hon. Gentleman says, why is it that, only five years ago, the port authority could invest in such a wide range of products?

Mr. Holt: The reason is that the authority has a wise and good management. The law as it stands at the moment says:
Powers are exercisable only for the conservancy, maintenance and improvement of the harbour and the facilities afforded therein or in connection therewith and for the reclamation of land.

Mr. Cook: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the port authority broke the law?

Mr. Holt: I am saying that, within that constraint, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority properly invested money in areas that were within that definition If it wanted to open a fish and chip shop to sell the excellent fish of Whitby, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), it would not be allowed to do so under the current legislation. It wants to expand and grow. It does not wish to be held back by the 1808 and subsequent legislative restrictions that have been placed upon it.
The port has the potential to become a driving force for commercial expansion in the north-east of England as a whole, creating new wealth and new jobs. I find it strange—indeed, perverse and bizarre—that Opposition Members are seeking to stifle the opportunity that is presented by the Bill. The authority currently has cash reserves of nearly £30 million and last year made a profit on trading of over £10 million, despite the Labour party's efforts to encourage a damaging strike.
The authority is simply not allowed to utilise its money effectively, and yet—within sight of the authority's land—there are development projects and even an enterprise zone in which the authority would dearly love to invest, if only it were allowed to do so. Teesside is at the forefront of the Government's urban regeneration policies. All of us from that area will vouch for that.
Over recent years, THPA has contributed to the success of most of the Teesside development corporation's flagship schemes and it is now time for it to be allowed to invest in other projects. The success of schemes such as the Hartlepool marina and the Tees offshore base, which are joint ventures with the Teesside development corporation, testify to the active role that the authority is waiting 143 play in regenerating the area that I and my colleagues have the honour to represent in the House. The restrictions of trust status are an absurd anachronism which cannot be allowed to continue.
Last year, the Government freed the port industry from the burden of the dock labour scheme—not before time, as I shall hear from many of my colleagues. That has done much to put United Kingdom ports on an equal footing with their continental competitors, but much more still needs to be done. The Tees and Hartlepool port authority is determined to capitalise on the new opportunities provided by the single European market and by the expansion in world trade. It has today announced the creation of two new companies to spearhead its expansion drive in the north-east: THPA Distribution and Services Ltd. and THPA Developments Ltd.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much imported coal will come up the river once the port gets on the go?

Mr. Holt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a great deal of coal comes into the port now for the British steel industry on Teesside. I understand that, beyond that, there are no plans for the importation of coal.
The creation of the new companies is one of the first practical steps towards creating new wealth and jobs in the north-east, but their success depends on the authoritiy being able to cast off the straitjacket of trust status now so that full preparations for 1992 and beyond can proceed immediately. That can be achieved only—I repeat, only—by the Bill.
The implications of the Bill will be widespread for the region. Under the twin curses of the dock labour scheme and trust status, the number of people employed by the authority has declined steadily and will continue to do so until the authority is given the freedom to expand, reversing the trend of many years by employing more and more people in a wider range of jobs. The new jobs will not only come directly from the port itself. The increased investment in the area and the injection of many millions of pounds into the local economy will have a knock-on effect, creating a host of jobs in the construction, transport, leisure and other industries.
The Labour party has tried to peddle the myth that reconstitution will deprive the local community of a say in how the port is run. Let me explode that myth now. The port is not owned by a company, by the local authority or by the Government, so it is accountable to nobody except its board. That board is appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport from people who have particular areas of expertise, but who are not appointed as representatives of the local people.
The port is not accountable financially or otherwise to the Secretary of State—indeed, it is not accountable to anyone else. The board can make decisions and it is accountable to no one. After the Bill has been passed, the plc will be responsible to its shareholders. The authority has deliberately chosen a method of issuing the shares of the new company that will ensure that the local community has a major stake in it. It guarantees that the shares will go to the staff and to local pension funds, and I am sure that the trustees of the Cleveland county council pension fund will see the wisdom of investing in this good thing, and will do so as soon as they can.

Mr. Neville Trotter: Is my hon. Friend aware that business in the north-east is very much behind his proposal that the future success of the port is vital to the interests of the north-east and that there is a strong feeling of support from north-east business for the Bill? Does he further agree that one of the traditional weaknesses of the north-east has been the lack of commercial headquarters? By means of the Bill, will he not create a further commercial headquarters which can show success in other directions as well as the success that it has already shown in managing the port?

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He of all people from the north-east of England has a wide knowledge of industry and commerce. He is constantly in touch with all the people in the region—[Interruption.]—who are responsible not just for shouting from the other side, but for creating wealth and jobs, and giving other people the opportunity to earn a living. My hon. Friend is right to make the point that the whole of the north-east of England, except a few Opposition morons—most of whom are sitting in the Chamber this evening—is waiting for the Bill to be passed.
The authority's commitment to Teesside needs no emphasis by me, but is confirmed by the inclusion in the Bill of every statutory safeguard that is contained in present legislation for the port, the users and the region. The Bill, as I have said, is supported by everyone in the area who recognises the great potential of a reconstituted

port in the private sector. Over 100 of my hon. Friends have put their names to an early-day motion backing the Bill, which is almost unique.
The leader of the county of Cleveland's Conservative group has described it as
an initiative which will benefit the people of Cleveland greatly
and as
an opportunity to generate wealth and create much needed employment".
That support has been echoed by all the leading local Conservatives in Cleveland, as well as by the Confederation of British Industry regionally and nationally. Although he obviously cannot take a view on a private Bill, I hope that later this evening my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping will confirm that the Government's policy is still that commercial enterprises fare best in the private sector.
In an area that hon. Members of all parties recognise needs more self-generated investment to build on the high level of investment already provided by the Government and the private sector, there exists a commercially successful organisation which is bursting at the seams with potential investment for the region.

Mr. John Prescott: You were supposed to have said that with emphasis.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Holt: I am quite happy for Opposition morons to make as much noise as they like. They have no logical arguments and they have not put many questions to me.
There exists a commercially very successful organisation—[Interruption.] Ridicule is no comment; it is merely the means by which Opposition Members show their ignorance of what is happening in the north-east of England. The Bill will rid the authority of the disablement of trust status, allowing it to expand and, at the same time, it will give the local community a major stake in one of the greatest assets of Teesside—its port. I am sure that such widespread support will be reflected by hon. Members. It is essential for the development of commerce and jobs in the north-east that hon. Members allow the Bill to go forward to receive the detailed scrutiny of a Select Committee. I ask the House please to support it for the good of Cleveland, the north-east of England and Britain as a whole.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: More than 25 years ago I took an interest in what was happening in the ports on the Tees and in the bay in which Hartlepool is located. I can recall vividly our many vexing and taxing debates on the Bill that set up the first estuarial authority in England. The Bill inculcated disgust in the minds of many people because at that time the port of Hartlepool was suffering the consequences of a deep depression. We suspected that the proposals that were to become the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966 would leave Hartlepool defenceless.
We debated in the Grand hotel in Hartlepool—not that we needed any sustenance. The challenge was there and we accepted that certain interests were involved. There was an arrogant presumption that those in positions of authority in the port world knew far better than any elected Member of Parliament what was best for the area. Unfortunately, the converse is always true. An elected Member has an


obligation to look at the broad background of matters of concern to the people whom he or she represents. The authority officials do not have that remit. They are there to make the port work and, if they are good at their job, they are outstandingly essential. The two roles are complementary. The elected Member represents the broader background of issues and interests and the port officials who seek to run the port at a profit have the specialist professionalism. Those are highly interesting roles in the development of any business or public utility, industry or agency that is accountable to the Government.
I distrusted the Bill because it did not appear to contain an undertaking to keep the port of Hartlepool alive. Rather, it suggested the repeal of legislation that protected the port. I had to come here as a new Member and, for the first time, sit among experienced Members and say, "I object." That was great fun. It worked magic. The Bill just went back. I did not realise that the Chairman of Ways and Means had powers to bring it back quickly. The Bill stayed its course and the Parliamentary Commissioner was awfully decent about it. Then I introduced a clause to protect Hartlepool. But I am not so green now. My naivety and lack of experience then was accompanied by a spot of good fortune, but this time I bring to the House a considerable amount of experience.
Why, when the argument for an estuarial authority was so good 25 years ago, do we want to change it now? The Rochdale report made a number of excellent recommendations that benefited British ports. The port that I represented was saved and the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has gone from success to success and has been blessed with good management, despite the oddballs. There are a couple there now, but they are of no account in the end because, like all of us. they come and go and serve their time in the middle.
Did someone sit down one bright morning in Queen's square, Middlesbrough and say to himself, "I think we should go in for privatisation"? I do not think anyone did that. The Minister said, "It's time you did some good thinking and got rid of the old-fashioned dock labour scheme.- We thought that we were fighting for a principle. We thought that we should keep the scheme since it had done the dockers a reasonably good turn in their time. It got them over the transitional period of depression that scars the working lives of people in our ports and in our industries.
But some of us forgot that the first stepping stone to privatisation was the pre-emption of something else. The Government have a policy on privatisation. I happen to be a senior Chairman in the House. I notice that one of my colleagues has now left the Chamber. I hope that he will not return because we do not want his vote tonight.
The Government's administrative wheels are a little clogged up and they have introduced three private Bills as test cases. I suspect that the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill is an agent provocateur for the Government. One or two of those involved may be on the list of the good and the great and a couple of knighthoods might come along in a few years' time. I do not object to that as a means of rewarding people for services done, but it is nice to mention it.
Why privatisation? The port is highly profitable. It has between £20 million and £30 million in cash floating around. It has about £60 million worth of assets. Its capital returns are running at about 18 per cent. The volume of traffic is as outstanding as the hon. Member for

Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said. We do not quarrel about small matters of fact like that, only about a change of approach. Some talk about political philosophy, but I prefer to talk about good common sense.
Why should a highly successful trust authority want to venture into the questionable waters of privatisation? The hon. Member for Langbaurgh said that everybody wanted this change. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) is here, although he comes from a place somewhat foreign to our Teesside. Still, we are pleased to see him back in the country, interfering in our little local matters.
The local authority, the county council, Hartlepool council and other district councils do not agree with the port authority. I have here a letter signed by Mr. D. B. Winney, the director of ABBA Shipping Limited, Union dock, Hartlepool. He says in his letter, which was published in a newspaper:
The Port Authority have, in recent years, in any case not felt bound by the alleged restriction of being an 'estuary-wide port organisation' because in 1984–85, they invested funds in companies, some of which were well outside Cleveland County, who were involved in property, finance, aviation, air travel, timber importing, transport, display signs, storage, security fencing and engineering.
That is what Tees and Hartlepool port authority is doing now, under the Act. The authority has not rebutted that accusation and it takes a great interest in such newspaper articles.
That poses a question: what is it that the port authority cannot do in the private sector because of the restrictions of the Act? Hon. Members are briefed on debates, and if any hon. Member can tell me that he has been advised by the port authority that it is not true that it has engaged in these private ventures, I shall come to the House and apologise because I will have been misled by a respectable employer.

Mr. Frank Cook: That is very fair.

Mr. Leadbitter: It is fair.
I have another question: why are we going through this arduous task, this highly expensive exercise, of a private Bill? In December 1989, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said, he had an Adjournment debate on this subject. He referred to the Rochdale report, which recommended, wisely, that, with the unfolding of the new port system for the principal estuarial ports, and the linking of the ports, it would be helpful if Ministers were given the power to amend, by affirmative resolution, in such a manner as to meet the changing wishes of port authorities.
If an hon. Member who has argued for saving a port that he represents and concluded that the exercise was worth it because of the formation of the first estuarial authority in the 1966 Act, then finds that the port authority has invested—I presume wisely—in a number of different economic sectors, why should he support this expensive business of doing something on the pretext that those activities cannot be carried out? If the authority can invest in aviation, signposting and all the rest of it, where else does it want to invest?

Mr. Holt: Like the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) in his Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) uses, cleverly, words such as "suggested"—the committee under Rochdale "suggested" changes. There is no evidence of those suggestions being implemented.

Mr. Leadbitter: No, but if Governments have the will, they have all the facilities available to them to do just that. I have spent much of my time in the House of Commons chairing Committees considering statutory instruments. I find orders coming to the House late at night when nearly everyone has gone so that they go through easily. Any Minister or Secretary of State can have his way through a variety of ways and means. I do not argue with that, but I argue that Tees and Hartlepool port authority has introduced an expensive measure to enable it to do something that it is doing already.
Mr. Winney has something interesting to say about the Bill. He says:
The most ominous part of the proposed Bill being published is in Part III, paragraph 12, which allows the current members of the authority to transfer en bloc to the new Trust (or holding company) being set up to continue the undertaking.
These people will then be able to continue in perpetuity, appointing the chairman of their choice and replacing members who leave the authority with their own nominees. Their power will be absolute.
Under schedule 2, paragraph 9, they will be able to fix their own remuneration".
That is not an inconsiderable advantage. I know of one man who hopes to God that his industry will be privatised next year, because he has found that his fellow chairmen are getting more money as they are free to make up their own pay slip.
Mr. Winney continues:
Finally, under Part III, section 14 (4) 'The Trust may … provide for one or more employees' share schemes to be established in respect of the holding company: and any such scheme may provide for the transfer of the shares without consideration.'
In other words, the reserves will be released not 'for the good of Teesside' but for the good of past, present and future
members of the authority. A corollary of that point is that other people will benefit. As Mr. Winney says, chairmen can be appointed for life. There will be a "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" attitude. The old golf club pals will be at it and they will make their own appointments. It is happening now.
Under article 3 of the Tees and Hartlepool Ports Authority Constitution Revision Order 1978 the local authority is able to appoint not fewer than two and not more than three people from a local panel on to the board. However, under article 3(5)(a), the Secretary of State can also appoint people—I fail to recall the exact number—who have knowledge of planning and the environment. Under that provision, people must be appointed who have special local knowledge.
We are talking about a highly successful port authority. With one or two exceptions, the management team is outstanding. It is co-operative. We are faced with a privatisation proposal that would lead to a transfer of all liabilities and assets. There would be a holding company, and the appointments to the board would be bound to be different from those that are currently and statutorily laid down.
Traditionally there has been a close working relationship between local authorities, which have been given powers by the House to represent the broad and general interests of the public, especially in areas where there is access to ports. There has been a link between the people and port authorities, and that has led to a great deal of pride and good will. When we have something good, it does not make sense to say, "We shall let it all go now. We

shall cut all the links and ties. We shall no longer have people on the board who have knowledge of planning and the environment."
I am the Chairman of the Committee that is considering the Environmental Protection Bill, and the port authority has a considerable part to play in what is taking place in that Committee. We are trying to find how best to co-operate and work with the port authority and attempting also to inject into the management operations of the authority, within its land boundaries and outside them, environmental standards that will ease the minds of many people in the area.

Mr. Tim Devlin: The link between Teesside and the structure of the board is important. Under the Bill, the consortium of shareholders that will take over the ownership of the undertaking will be drawn from management, employees of the board, port authority pensioners, pension funds of the port authority, local authorities and port users. Accordingly, the link with the local community will be as strong as ever. Surely the board will reflect the share ownership.

Mr. Leadbitter: Some links are firm and others are tenuous. Some so-called links are formed because it is thought that it is nice to be courteous and to have that sort of relationship. I am saying that the links will be broken.

Mr. Jack Thompson: I understand the proposition that pension funds, employees and management would be involved, but there is nothing to prevent shares from being sold. In two, three, four or five years' time, the ownership of the port authority could be in the hands of London, Brighton, Swansea, Inverness or even Tokyo. That will not help the port authority.

Mr. Leadbitter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It demonstrates the seriousness of what we are seeking to do.
If I were to say to the port authority officials, "For God's sake think again", no harm would be done to the growing economy and prosperity that we all want in the north-east. We are talking about something that affects us all in the north-east; it is not merely a Tees and Hartlepool matter. But would any harm be done if we took the route set out in the Bill? Some might say no. They might say, "Let us get on to the adventurous road of challenge and responsibility." That is what Professor Tawney might say. Those people must understand that there is a terrifying risk.
I have seen some greedy people since I became a Member of this place. They make me sick. One example is the Guinness affair. Let us not think that something of that sort could not happen following the privatisation of the port authority. The Lonrho management and the Al Fayed brothers insult each other as though they have no human decency. They do not have the guts to sue for libel. They reflect greed and enormous wealth.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leadbitter: I shall complete this part of my argument and then allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. I am getting into form and when I do so I stick out my chin. I am prepared to take what then ensues because hon. Members have a right to come back at me.
Those who have studied the City scandals and the way in which takeover rules have been broken will understand what I am saying. In the area which I have represented for over a quarter of a century there has been an outstanding record of good management and growing success.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I listened carefully to the way in which the hon. Gentleman began his remarks. I was pleased when he paid fulsome tribute to the management of the port authority. I am attracted to the debate because I represent a port authority—Weymouth—and I have talked to that authority's management. I am encouraged by what it said and by the profitability of its operation. I should like a private company to be developed in the north-east, for which I have love and affection. I look to the future in the hope that such a company could expand its operations in the same way, perhaps, as Associated British Ports. The management services of a port such as the one that I represent—not investment services—would demonstrate that the north-south divide is not a one-way street of bringing expertise from the north-east to the south. The future should see us developing land bridges and taking advantage of all the opportunities offered by the Bill, which comes before us in advance of the Government's thoughts of putting out all the trust ports——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, not a speech.

Mr. Bruce: It is an intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Bruce: Surely Opposition Members are trying to deny opportunities to an excellent management team.

Mr. Leadbitter: I have always believed—I am not alone in my belief—that confrontation in the economy is unwise. Private enterprise, freedom of movement, laissez-faire and public accountability are all complementary. Many areas of our so-called private sector industry have been delighted over the years by the assistance of large publicly owned utilities. How many of our private enterprise companies have lived off the backs of the steel industry, the coal industry and British Rail? I stand for a balance between private enterprise and public accountability. I do not believe that dogma—on any side—is good for debate in the House.
The Tees and Hartlepool port authority has been successful. It has invested in other companies, and in private companies. It has not done that for fun—it has done so to get a return on its investments. Where something is successful like that, there is no point in saying, "Look, you will get a little bit more, boys, if you privatise yourselves as well."
The House should know that the marina in Hartlepool has been initiated by the Teesside development corporation. I was the first public figure in Hartlepool to suggest a marina. I shall tell the House why it was not started then. So many people crawled along to the public coffers—so-called "high-risk entrepreneurs"—that it never got off the ground. However, a marina has now been started. There is a working relationship between the Teesside development corporation and a company called Lovell. Tees and Hartlepool port authority has shares in the Teesside development corporation. It is like the

Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. In my view, that holy trinity is working to some benefit. There is a composite of a trust company, a private company and the Teesside development corporation, all working well together.

Mr. Devlin: I am sorry to trouble the hon. Gentleman again, but I am a little confused. I thought that I heard him say that the THPA has shares in the Teesside development corporation. Surely that is not possible because the Teesside development corporation was set up under legislation as a body corporate by statute. It does not have shares.

Mr. Leadbitter: I do not think that I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly. Perhaps he will say that again.

Mr. Devlin: I may he mistaken about what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I thought that he said that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority had shares in the Teesside development corporation. The TDC is a body created by statute and does not have shares. I am wondering whether I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly.

Mr. Leadbitter: Perhaps I should correct that. In fact, I think that the TDC has shares in the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. I have seen the share list somewhere, but I shall write to the THPA if I have made a mistake.

Mr. Devlin: I am sorry, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is correct on that point either. As I understand it, the THPA does not have any shares at the moment.

Mr. Leadbitter: That is a matter for me to clear up, but I have seen the document somewhere.

Mr. Bell: As my hon. Friend says, the question about shareholdings will be rectified or verified later. However, is it not a fact that Tees and Hartlepool port authority is involved in a tripartite development venture, the Hartlepool marina, involving the Teesside development corporation and the Lovell partnership?

Mr. Leadbitter: Yes, that is the position.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) was right to intervene. If an hon. Member has not got something quite right in the debate, he will seek to put it right in the proper manner later.

Mr. Frank Cook: To ensure that we get a balanced view of the nitpicking that is taking place, will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that one of the major petitioners against the Bill was Teesside development corporation? Therefore, the relationship that we have been trying to put to bed during the past five minutes is not quite as cosy as one might be led to believe by some of our friends on the Government Benches—and I use that expression advisedly.

Mr. Leadbitter: I shall pick up my point about risks. From experience, I believe that it will be a risk to divest the THPA of its assets, which will be transferred. When a holding company is in place and a shareholding applied for, I have no doubt that if the financial interests exist there will be a takeover. If there was a takeover, what would happen to the interests in the north-east which currently benefit from the THPA as constituted at present? It is more likely than not that any large company which takes over the THPA will have its headquarters elsewhere. That will be our first problem.
Secondly, the shares would reflect a certain amount of public reaction. Some people would have a handsome windfall. We have seen that happen in some of the recent privatisations, of which water is a good example—[Interruption.] Conservative Members need not say that that does not happen because the French took over some of our water companies.

Mr. Kevin Barron: One of the biggest windfalls, and one of the Government's first privatisations in the early 1980s, was from Associated British Ports. Within 24 hours of trading, the price of its shares was phenomenally higher than the price at which the Government sold them. Ever since, the Government have considered ports to be a lucrative area from which they and their friends can make money when they are privatised.

Mr. Leadbitter: Yes, indeed.
Should those things come about, we must consider all the consequences that flow from takeovers, such as the power and greed and all the damage that is done to the areas that the harbours serve—in this case, to the Hartlepool and Tees area.
Let us consider my constituency. Through the actions of Hartlepool district council, we have spent about £2 million on land improvements, repairs, changes to facilities and, in some cases, to operations in the THPA area. That shows the close concern and working relationship exercised by Hartlepool district council, when representing its people. Such a working relationship would not exist in the circumstances that I have described, if the risks of privatisation falter in the end.
What are the benefits of the proposals? There is no doubt that the chief executive's salary will jump up in double quick time, and that will flow right through the organisation. Those concerned will be rubbing their hands with glee and trotting off on holidays abroad. Instead of travelling economy class, they will travel first class.

Mr. Holt: That is cheap stuff.

Mr. Leadbitter: That is what will happen——

Mr. Holt: rose——

Mr. Leadbitter: I shall give way in a moment.
I hope hon. Members will not take exception to this point. I should like to know the chairman of a former public body that is privatised whose salary did not jump up to three or four times its original level. That is what will happen here. It will be passed by the board and public representatives will not be there. Incidentally, Conservative Members should not assume that public representatives are redundant in privatisations. There is already an 18 per cent.—or thereabouts—capital return on investments. There is already a high turnover, and the organisation is a commercial success. Other disadvantages always follow from such circumstances. The company would not accept the same kind of social, economic and environmental responsibilities as it does now as a trust port. It would be all a question of return for the shareholders; everything else would take second, third, fourth and fifth places.

Mr. Holt: I could not let the hon. Gentleman's rather nasty remarks against the chief executive of the port

authority go by without asking him if, before making those attacks, he took the trouble to meet the chief executive and his board to discuss their private Bill and put his objections to them. I might tell him that, at present, they can set their own salaries and decide to travel first class. I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to consider quite carefully the remarks that he has just made against very distinguished business men in the north-east of England.

Mr. Leadbitter: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I have thought out very carefully what I have said. More than that, I have behind me not only sufficient knowledge but the great advantage of a lot of experience. Incidentally, in this House, experience is far more important than intellect, and it is something that the hon. Gentleman is desperately short of.

Mr. Bell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is at present a salaries committee, as I understand it, that looks at salaries on the Tees and Hartlepool port authority? Did my hon. Friend hear any whisper from the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that there would be a salaries committee once this authority was privatised?

Mr Leadbitter: I think that that has been noted.
I cannot understand why there should be any objection to what is a common cause and something with which nobody disagrees. I put it to the House: does any hon. Member know of any chairman of any public body that has been privatised who has not had his salary increased within months by three and sometimes four times? That is a hard fact of life.
I turn now to another disadvantage. A company called Shell is tripping around the coast of Scotland with little boats—30,000-tonners, 20,000-tonners—tipping off coal in ports where it feels that vigilant, elected Members of Parliament cannot find it out, and there has been a row about it in Scotland. I happen to be a senior member of the Select Committee on Energy and we have been notified of what is happening. Shell is moving that coal at a loss to itself, while the coal mines in Scotland have been brought to the point of litigation because they cannot get contracts from the South of Scotland electricity board.
Does any hon. Member think that, once the importers of coal have got the market, prices will stay low? Of course they will not. The innocents of private enterprise seem to presume that those of us who have different concepts of economic behaviour are completely naive. Once they get hold of the market in Scotland, we shall have Scottish miners out of work, redundant and another charge on the economy. We shall have to ask ourselves who on earth forgot to do the costings of all this. The public have lost and Shell and the people who import the coal have gained.
We heard earlier something about there being no plans in the Tees and Hartlepool port authority for the provision of installations for the importation of coal. That is nonsense, utter rubbish.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Poppycock, bunkum and balderdash.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. "Poppycock" is an expression that I hope not to have to hear too often in the House. I hope that hon. Members will take the trouble to consult Chambers dictionary to see the definition of "poppycock". Mr. Leadbitter.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would remind you that even in your elevated position you have to bear in mind that, when the Prime Minister of the day refers to "poppycock, bunkum and balderdash" when challenged about her tenure of No. 10, we have to accept it in the House. It does not matter to me; I do not believe a word she says.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot sit here arguing with the hon. Gentleman. I have ruled that I hope not to have to hear "poppycock" too often in the House. Mr. Leadbitter.

Mr. Leadbitter: I am very grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for Bolsover; his timing is perfect. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of course I accept your ruling. Naturally, we are kith and kin in this business and therefore we have to accept, should accept and want to accept your rulings.
So that is the position in Scotland. To suggest, as the hon. Member for Langbaurgh did, I think, that there are no plans for coal importation installations in the Tees and Hartlepool port authority area is just not true. People in National Power, for instance, would not agree with the hon. Gentleman there. Certainly, I know from a letter that I have seen that even the words "feasibility study" are a bit naughty. Some people who write to Members of Parliament must consider that we are illiterate, or at least gullible. It is an indication of their arrogance when they write letters about feasibility studies.
The fact is that the port authority is contemplating, and, in my view, planning for, that extra trade, which it knows is there and which it will not turn down. The members know that, because it will not have the social and economic responsibilities that I have tried to describe, they will be able to get this done much more quickly if the authority is privatised. At least we shall have a reasonable amount of public representation on the board to hold their hand if we can get the sense of our argument over to them.
In recent years, and more particularly since the miners' strike, people have been sitting at dinner tables in the City and talking in terms of the reduction of the coal input into the power programme. From about 70 million tonnes—that in itself was a drop—we are down to about 60 million tonnes. That means that the Coal Board and the Government, and those others who want to keep nice and pally with them, will seek to pick up this part of the market, and the Tees and Hartlepool port authority is one of two major ports that have been pinpointed. I think that, in the case of Teesside, they are thinking in terms of 5 million tonnes or thereabouts.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: That 5 million tonnes is the equivalent of at least two collieries in the Durham area.

Mr. Leadbitter: One also has to consider the dramatic number of closures, almost without exception without any time frame, to allow those communities to work out some form of industrial regeneration in the area. Whole communities are beaten up. That is the only way to describe the situation. As a result of political ignorance, whole communities are being beaten up by people who do not care, so long as it is going to be good for them. When the coal industry loses to that extent, the importers and the consumers find that the benefits disappear overnight. As in

the case of loss leader sales, once the market has been secured, prices will go up. The competition will have gone from the industry.
We have to be quite frank about what is in the minds of the people who have put this privatisation measure before the House. It is not just a question of extra profits. Any reasonable man would be happy with the success of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. There are other matters behind the scenes.

Mr. Devlin: There is no evidence whatever to justify the hon. Gentleman's allegations. At present, there is a facility at Teesport that handles 3 million tonnes of coal a year from different countries around the world. This includes British coal, and it is going to British Steel. In addition, 250,000 to 500,000 tonnes go to other users through the port. There has been no plan whatever to expand that facility. The Labour party has no evidence to support its allegations, despite the fact that, in respect of every port-related piece of private legislation, it has produced coal-mining MPs who have made the same claim. The matter is getting completely out of hand.

Mr. Leadbitter: I quote from a press report of 29 March 1988:
The River Tees will become Britain's coal import centre if a dramatic plan by port chiefs gets off the ground.
British Steel's giant Teesside terminal already handles the world's biggest ships, bringing cheap open cast coal from across the world to feed Redcar's hungry blastfurnace.
But now Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority is looking at building a huge 'common-user' coal terminal.

Mr. Devlin: Which paper?

Mr. Leadbitter: It does not matter which paper. I want to get this on the record. The port authority may rebut it, if it can.[Laughter.] There is no point in the hon. Gentleman sniggering and laughing. We are used to a high standard of debate here. Let the hon. Gentleman enjoy the sedentary position and keep his lip buttoned.

Mr. Barron: I want to point out to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) that both the chief executive officer and the commercial director of the authority are on record—in local papers that I assume those hon. Members do not read—as having said that, having received the results of the feasibility study, they are pressing ahead in conjunction with National Power. If I get an opportunity, I shall speak about this matter at a later stage.

Mr. Leadbitter: The newspaper report from which I was quoting continues:
The THPA has commissioned leading independent shipping and energy consultants Lev Sychrava Associates for a feasibility study into transforming the 300-acre former Shell Teesport refinery site into a coal-importing complex.
Lev Sychrava, director of research and development with Lambert Brothers Shipping before going freelance, says the plan has a lot going for it.
The Tees site would be a good location to develop such a terminal, he said.
People do not commission a feasibility study of that kind without an objective. Indeed, nothing of this nature can be done properly without consultants and advisers. The suggestion that there is no plan in the minds of the board members is—I will not use the word to which you objected, Mr. Deputy Speaker—unreasonable.
I have no doubt that other hon. Members who catch your eye, Sir, including the hon. Member for Stockton,


South (Mr. Devlin), will make other points. I hope that those who intend to vote tonight for privatisation realise that they will not be able to give a guarantee, either to people in this House or within their own hearts, that in future there will be the same success, the same momentum, as has been experienced under the port authority for the past 25 years.
I had doubts about the Hartlepool port being kept within the estuary authority statutory arrangements, but I see in this Bill no guarantee that the port will be preserved. I have noted with interest, of course, that the port's trading area has diminished over the years. I have noted with pleasure the development of the marina, although that has yet to come to fruition. How can I feel certain, however, that, under privatisation, the Hartlepool port will be allowed to exist?
Under privatisation, I would have no defence. The authority might decide that, for one reason or another, it was not commercial or economic to keep the port open. It might be like British Rail. When British Rail wants to close a line, it gives information about the worst days, just as the meteorological office issues information only about the days when it is pouring. These chaps might have all sorts of peculiar ways of leading us to believe that the port at Hartlepool should close. Even if Tees and Hartlepool port authority wrote to me in big gold letters, "Ted Leadbitter, the port of Hartlepool will remain. Please be satisfied," I would say that those words were not worth anything. Tees and Hartlepool port authority cannot give anyone an undertaking about what a privatised industry will do.
I oppose the Bill, because my constituency interest is pertinent and real. Already, 70 men have been bought off. Some of my dockers were bought off. The authority said that they were getting too much money and it replaced them with people on about £8,000 a year. We know the tricks. So there will be no guarantees from the port authority, no satisfaction for the people whom I represent and plenty of worry for the miners. While there might be flash-in-the-pan prosperity for some of them, in the jungle of private enterprise that will not last. When the call goes out, they will be swallowed up and their jobs will have gone. I wish that they had listened to the common sense that seems always to prevail on this side of the House.

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I think the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has finished. It may be for the convenience of the House if at this stage I make a brief statement on the Government's views on the Bill.
As I explained in the Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on 1 December, trust ports are slightly odd bodies. They are independent. They are not accountable to anyone. Their powers and sources of finance are limited. But they have to compete with ports run by companies like Associated British Ports and Felixstowe, which have the flexibility and accountability that the trust ports lack. It has long been in the Government's mind that it would be desirable if at least the main commercial trust ports could be converted into companies. Changing the status of a trust port in that way needs primary legislation, but the Government have not been able to find room in their programme for the

appropriate legislation. That was why, as has been mentioned already, about a year ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), when he was Secretary of State for Transport, encouraged trust ports which saw benefits in turning themselves into companies to bring forward their own private Bills.
It is still our intention to bring forward Government legislation on trust ports at the earliest convenient opportunity. But given the pressure on the legislative programme, private legislation is the only way by which these ports can quickly be converted into fully fledged private sector enterprises. However, I stress one point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) explained, the Bill will not alter at all the statutory responsibilities and powers of Tees and Hartlepool port authority under its existing private legislation. That legislation will be carried forward and will apply lock, stock and barrel to the proposed new successor company. That successor company will still be a harbour authority. It will be subject, just as the port authority is today, to those provisions of public legislation which apply to harbour authorities generally. I emphasise that there will be no loss or reduction in existing powers or obligations. That is a very important point, and the House should not be under any misapprehension. The position is exactly the same as when Associated British Ports was privatised.
The Government support the principle underlying the Bill. Tees and Hartlepool port authority has shown welcome initiative. So has Clyde port authority, which has brought a similar Bill before Parliament. But both Bills have raised some difficult issues for the Government, which in the public interest we have had to consider with some care.
A parallel could be drawn between a trust port and the trustee savings banks before they were privatised. It is indeed a close parallel. We share the opinion that trust ports, like trustee savings banks, have no explicit owners. They can therefore be said to be owned by the state, as distinct from the Government. So it is for Parliament to decide, taking into account any views expressed by the Government, not only whether a trust port should be allowed to turn itself into a company but who should get the proceeds from the sale of the shares in that company.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Do the Government know how many imports will come into the country over the next three or four years through these ports?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am not sure that that is an appropriate point at this stage of the Bill, but there has been a vast change in how the ports operate. They have taken advantage of freedoms given to them by the House over the years.

Mr. Campbell: The Government support the Bill. They are changing legislation which covers fuel imports, but it is being done by a private Bill. The Government are changing their energy policy completely.

Mr. McLoughlin: I cannot accept that point. If my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh, who speaks on behalf of the promoters——

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree——

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do I understand aright? Is a Back-Bencher speaking on behalf of a Minister at the Dispatch Box in answer to an intervention?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The Minister has the floor, but he has given way to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend accept that importation is on one side of the coin and exportation on the other? Are we not putting out more cars—built by Nissan—through the Tees than the Opposition ever thought we could?

Mr. McLoughlin: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is an important part of the development of ports, and one that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has caught on to, very successfully—as I said in the 1 December Adjournment debate in answer to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough.
There is a further consideration. Many trust ports are different from the TSB in one respect. That applies to, among others, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. Unlike the TSB, it has received Government support in the form of grants to purchase and improve its assets. Admittedly it is a long time since such grants were paid to the THPA, and the amounts were small; but the grants were paid about 20 years ago towards investment projects in the port, and some of those assets are still in use. There is a general rule that, when assets acquired or improved by a non-Exchequer body with the aid of Government grants are disposed of, an appropriate proportion of the proceeds should go to the Exchequer. The Public Accounts Committee rightly attaches great importance to that.
If the Bill were amended to provide expressly for a share of the proceeds of the sale of the assets to go to the Exchequer, it could cease to be a private Bill. There would then be the problem of accommodating it within the Government's legislative programme, to which I have already referred. The Government are considering the best means of securing an appropriate share for the Exchequer from the proceeds of the sale of the port authority, and of other similar ports. One of a number of options that we are considering is to include a provision in the Finance Bill.
I therefore recommend that the Bill be given a Second Reading. It is a slightly unusual private Bill, to match the slightly unusual nature of the trust ports themselves. A number of questions arise—the hon. Member for Middlesbrough raised some in his Adjournment debate on 1 December—but I suggest that it would be appropriate for the Select Committee to consider them, and to report back to the House. It will have the opportunity to hear evidence from, and to question, the promoters and the petitioners in detail.
For those reasons, I shall be supporting the Bill later tonight.

Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the debate began I put to your predecessor in the Chair a specific point of order of which I had given him notice. That was to the effect that this Bill is not a private Bill, but a public Bill, because it is Government policy and the Government had clearly shown that it was their policy, although they did not have time to include it in their legislative programme. They therefore obliged, or persuaded, Tees and Hartlepool port authority to take a private route. Let me quote a specific Hansard response on

12 February 1990 by the Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler). The hon. Gentleman asked
the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the trust ports.
The Under-Secretary replied:
We believe that there are advantages in the main commercial trust ports being transformed into companies. So far we have not been able to make room ourselves for the legislation needed to bring about such a change. Meanwhile the Clyde and the Tees——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure what the point of order is for me that the hon. Member is raising. I was expecting to call him, but at this stage I am not sure what the point of order is for the Chair. Perhaps he will explain that to me.

Mr. Bell: I shall do that immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having completed the short quotation, which concludes:
Meanwhile the Clyde and the Tees and Hartlepool port authorities have promoted their own private measures".—[Official Report, 12 February 1990; Vol. 167, c.106.]
When I raised this point of order earlier, I was given a response from the Chair, which I fully accept and do not challenge. I was told that the matter had been looked into by the appropriate authorities of the House, which had reached the conclusion that this was an appropriate private Bill.
We have since heard a Minister of the Crown say from the Dispatch Box openly and frankly that this is Government policy, that the Government are looking to privatise some 50 trust ports, that they do not have time to do so in their legislative programme and that they have therefore opted for the private route.
Was the Chair, or were the authorities of the House, aware of that when this was considered to be an appropriate private Bill? The Under-Secretary said that there were financial considerations attached to the Bill. He made a specific reference to grant money that had been given to Tees and Hartlepool port authority about 20 years ago. He said, in addition, that there would be a financial consideration because the Treasury, as a matter of principle, wished to realise not only the grant money but any benefits that had accrued as a result of that grant money. He said that the Public Accounts Committee had made the same statement. So he said clearly that financial provisions, which were not there before, attached to the Bill. He made a clear admission on the Floor of the House that it is Government policy. My question for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is whether this is a hybrid Bill, and whether the Chair was aware of that Government statement of policy before it gave its earlier ruling.

Mr. Devlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does it relate to the same point?

Mr. Devlin: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point of order that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) just raised fell into two parts. The second part was expressly ruled on by your predecessor in the Chair earlier this evening, having received notice from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough of all the points that he just made. May I ask you, therefore, whether you will respond to only the first part of the point of order—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall respond to all points of order. I assure the hon. Member that the Chair is indivisible. This matter was considered extremely carefully. We had notice of it before the debate began.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) will know the ruling that was given by my predecessor in the Chair—I have it in front of me—and nothing that I have heard from the Dispatch Box in any way alters the ruling that was given at that time. The hon. Member will know well that if he feels that this is not a proper measure to be a private Bill, he can vote against it should there be a Division at the end of the debate.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was it in order for the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), to leave the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) was speaking to a point of order about the legitimacy of continuing with the measure on the Floor of the House? In other words, he did not remain in the Chamber to hear the points that my hon. Friend was making and the ruling that was given by the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am relieved that the responsibilities of the Chair do not extend to the movement of hon. Members in and out of the Chamber.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: I am speaking for the Opposition, it having been made clear that there is a Government line on the issue. It may be appropriate, therefore, for the Opposition to state their position. While we in no way question the decision given in the ruling by the Chair, the words used by the Minister tonight have obviously thrown doubt into the minds of my hon. Friends about whether this is, in fact, a genuine private Bill.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) described the trust ports as a peculiarly British institution. I remind the House that the basis of the trust ports is that they either reinvest any surpluses achieved between operating costs and expenditure or they use those surpluses to reduce charges. I should have thought that that was a highly commendable practice and that it would be of regret to most hon. Members that British business over the years has not been keen to reinvest its profits in its own locality. Many of the trust ports have been highly successful in attracting new businesses and bolstering employment in areas hard hit by unemployment. Tees and Hartlepool is no exception to that.

Mr. Frank Cook: On my hon. Friend's point about reducing charges, is she aware that D. B. Winney, who was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), said in his letter, which was published:
The reason for the massive level of its reserves is simply that, in its monopoly position as sole authority on the Tees and at Hartlepool, it has been able over 24 years, to levy dues on goods and for conservancy at any price it chose to fix."?
Mr. Winney went on to say that, if there had been competition for customers who had installations on the river at Seal Sands to turn to, it would have been quite a different matter. The easy way for the port to solve its problems of having massive reserves would have been to release its reserves and reduce its charges, thereby giving industry the benefit of lower charges on the Tees.

Ms. Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent contribution. Clearly that is a way forward. Certainly it would be a way to avoid the danger of gold-plated cranes on the docks.
It is not surprising that the trust ports, as authorities with some public accountability and, indeed, responsibility, should have attracted the attention of the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) reminded the House, in 1988 trust ports became the subject of a Government consultation on privatisation. The Bill appears to be an attempt to substitute that and to pre-empt possible Government legislation. Although, undoubtedly, we would not be happy to see such Government legislation introduced, at least it would be an honest response to the position, which would give us the opportunity to debate the wider issues of conservancy and safety, which are pertinent to privatisation.
The Bill simply opens the way for loss of local control and local investment, possibly loss of jobs and the potential for asset-stripping. It is significant that the local authorities and unions, such as the Transport and General Workers Union—I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by that union—oppose the Bill, fearing the example of privatisation in other spheres.
The proceeds from privatising the port could be considerable. It is interesting that the Minister has described the degree of Government interest in the matter, through which they hope that moneys might be returned to the Exchequer.
Who will be in control of the port authority after privatisation?

Mr. Holt: The shareholders.

Ms. Ruddock: Indeed, the shareholders. It is obvious that a takeover of the holding company could result in control moving out of the area entirely. The Bill will create a different structure from the present one. At present, the Secretary of State can include in it not less than two and no more than three members from a panel of local authority nominees. I suggest that that gives some local accountability.
In addition, the Secretary of State is required in appointing all members of the authority to have regard to relevant experience in planning and environmental matters affecting the area of the harbour. He must also have regard to the desirability of including members who are familiar with the area served by the authority. All that will be lost.
The authority has shown that it can act commercially, in a commercial environment, under the present arrangements. That has been evidenced by the successful operation of the port and the high level of profitability achieved. I understand that at present the port is largely run by people who live and work in the area, including councillors, and it is therefore operated in the interests of the locality as well as those of the wider economy.
The Bill does nothing to ensure that the importance of the port to the local economy will continue to be sufficiently recognised. It is obvious to us that open public subscription for shares in the holding company may provide windfall benefit to those who have hitherto not been involved with the port and its locality in any way. It is our view that there is not sufficient reason to dissolve the authority and set up the new company proposed in the Bill.
Nothing that has been said to the House suggests that the present powers are too restrictive; indeed, the port's economic success and expansion over the years give the lie to that suggestion. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh boasted that this was the third largest port undertaking in the United Kingdom——

Mr. Holt: So it is.

Ms. Ruddock: I have every reason to believe that that boast is correct, but that gives the lie to the claim that the authority is constrained by its present structure. No matter what constraints the hon. Gentleman may believe exist at the moment, there is no requirement or justification for the fundamental constitutional change that the Bill would effect, which we believe would be to the detriment of the port authority and its dealings with the local community and to the detriment of the local economy.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I support the Bill. It is appropriate that we should have another private Bill to promote the navigation of the Tees. The original navigation Act was promoted by the Tees Navigation Company as a private Bill in 1808. That Bill was succeeded by a further private Bill, which set up the Tees Conservancy Commission in 1852. After that came the Bill to which we have already referred, which became the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966. That Act introduced the Hartlepool facilities of the British Transport Docks Board.
This is a Bill initiated by Teesside people for the benefit of Teesside people. It will mean that there will be a major investing authority based in Teesside for the future. At present, the powers of the board are extremely restricted. Under part III of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966, the authority shall have powers
to take such steps from time to time as they may consider necessary for the conservancy, maintenance and improvement of the harbour and the facilities afforded therein and in connection therewith, and for the reclamation of land.
Section 12(2) says:
For those purposes, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the Authority may—improve maintain, regulate, manage, mark and light the harbour and, subject to the provisions of this Act, provide port facilities therein, and acquire, carry on and improve any undertaking … affording or intended to afford accommodation or facilities for the transport, loading, unloading, receiving, forwarding, or warehousing of goods".
We have been asked who sat down in Queen's square and thought one bright sunny day that it would be a good idea to privatise the port? Surely the point is that the nature of the port has changed a great deal since 1966. That was what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) was asked about.

Mr. Frank Cook: Where were you in 1966?

Mr. Devlin: At that stage, I was at school. Being a young hon. Member, I am only 30, and I cannot say that at the age of seven I was paying much attention to the navigation of the Tees.
However, returning to what I wanted to say, which is more important, between 1966 and 1976 there were major land reclamation works. Thousands of acres of land have been brought into use for petrochemical, chemical, steel and port facilities. As a result of that investment, the Tees

and Hartlepool port authority is now promoting itself as the European chemical centre on Teesside. There has been no shortage of investment by the port authority.

Mr. Frank Cook: On the one hand the hon. Member says that there are restrictions and that the port cannot do anything, and on the other he says that it is investing in all sorts of things left, right and centre and doing so much. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He has to make up his mind: is it restricted or not?

Mr. Devlin: As usual, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has missed the point. The activities and areas in which the port authority can invest are extremely limited. His hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, whom I am answering, asked earlier why it was necessary for the powers of the port authority to be changed now. The reason is that, since 1966, the port authority has carried out all its functions to the best of its abilities, vet the authority will be left with a large amount of cash which it cannot invest in any further port facilities on Teesside. The authority has reclaimed thousands of acres of land and it has built petrochemical and steel complexes and wharves, and it has promoted the chemical centre on Teesside, but it is getting to the point where there is little more it can do.
The position has changed recently because of the abolition of the dock labour scheme. The status of the port authority is no longer protected as it was formerly. It is not realistic for Opposition Members to say that, because the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has a monopoly over the navigation of the Tees, it is a monopoly and that it is uncompetitive, as hon. Members have said about fees. The fees charged by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority are extremely competitive. They have to be, because the port has to compete with ports all around the coasts of Britain, many of which have been privatised. It has to compete with a lean, mean and hungry Associated British Ports, and it cannot sit by the River Tees and say that it does not have to pay attention to anyone else.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Devlin: I have given way to the hon. Member for Stockton, North and I do not intend to give way to him again—he can make his own speech—but I shall give way to the other hon. Members in due course.
Where does the Tees and Hartlepool port authority go from here? It is in a competitive world. The only way that it can survive in the long term is by introducing an integrated transport facility which must not be limited to the borders of the River Tees.
In the past 150 years, as hon. Members know, ports have developed and become bigger. The port on the River Tees was originally at the town of Yarm in my constituency. When ships became too big, the port moved to Stockton, which became a great boat building centre. With the introduction of metal shipbuilding and iron ships to the River Tees, the port moved downriver to Middlesbrough.
The Bill marks the point at which the port is now constrained within a narrow area at the mouth of the River Tees and at Hartlepool. It wishes to expand beyond that limit and to expand the facilities and activities on Teesside.
Since we are all reading from press cuttings this evening, I shall quote from the Evening Gazette of 9 January 1990.

Mr. Cook: We are all doing some reading tonight.

Mr. Devlin: Yes.
The article says:
Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority chiefs have their eye on spreading their wings in the 1990s. They see the P &amp; O group as a possible model
in its bid to become a private company because
P &amp; O owned Ferrymasters, the cargo shipping firm … and transport firms on the continent as well as the UK. We are in the transport game. One of the strengths of the future is having an interest in several links in the transport chain,' said Mr. Britton.
That is why the Bill is so important. There are now cash reserves sitting in the bank belonging to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority amounting to £30 million, and each year those cash reserves are growing. There is extreme competition from private, formerly non-scheme ports. There is also the very important matter of the future of employment on Teesside.
Job opportunities in the port have contracted over a number of years because of the operation of the dock labour scheme. After abolition, the port authority slimmed down its operation in order to match European productivity levels. It is now in a position to expand a whole range of its facilities and activities, but it is unable to do so. Recently, 28 jobs were on offer and 700 people wanted them.
The Tees and Hartlepool port authority is confined by the objectives that are set out in the 1966 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh said that we live in changing times. There are immense investment opportunities on Teesside is a result of the activities of the Teesside development corporation and the Tyne and Wear development corporation. It is only right that where there is an overlap between the functions of the port and the Teesside development corporation, which has taken over planning powers in respect of some of the land that belonged to the port authority, they should work together. They have worked together, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool said, at Hartlepool marina, at the Teesside offshore base and in Stockton.
The result of that co-operation is that the Tees port authority believes that there is a range of investment opportunities throughout Stockton, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Iangbaurgh and the north-east in general—even up to Newcastle—in which it would like to invest. However, it is constrained by the objectives in the Act.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North tried to be clever earlier in the debate when he referred to a range of investments which, he said, were outwith the objectives set out in the Act. The port authority is no longer involved in many of the activities that he mentioned.

Mr. Frank Cook: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that it was involved in those activities?

Mr. Devlin: No, I do not. However, those activities were directly related to the port and its activities and fell into category B, which I read out at the beginning of my speech.
At the moment, 37 million tonnes of goods come into and go out of the port every year. It made a profit last year of £9·246 million. That profit is accumulating. There is a fantastic return on capital of 17·6 per cent. What will happen to all that money if the port remains a trust port? It will not be used. It is a wasted opportunity for the people of Teesside to have on their doorsteps a cash-rich 

authority that is unable to spend money on a variety of projects within its area, although it could and should do so.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that this private Bill has been introduced so that 5 million tonnes can be brought up the river? It would also mean the closure of Hartlepool coalfield, which would lead to at least 6,000 miners losing their jobs.

Mr. Devlin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) for raising the matter of coal. When I challenged the hon. Member for Hartlepool earlier on that matter, he read out a document which he then refused to show me when I came across the Floor to ask him. From which newspaper did it come? When the hon. Gentleman read it out, he said that it was a press release, yet I could see from where I was sitting that it was a press cutting. He did not say from which journal it had been drawn. I took advice on this point this afternoon from the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. I was assured—I have no reason to doubt its word—that it had no plans at present to expand the port in any way.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: At present.

Mr. Devlin: The hon. Gentleman shouts at me. I shall be perfectly frank. A feasibility study was carried out by PowerGen on Chatham and Teesside. No decision was made as a result of that study. It is only right that such feasibility studies should be undertaken. Opposition Members see the Bill as a vehicle for bringing in more coal on the River Tees. The authority can do that already. Powers already exist for coal to be brought in on the River Tees. As I said earlier, a considerable amount of coal is already imported from Australia, Canada and other countries to British Steel on Teesside and at present 30 million tonnes are coming in. That point has already gone by the by.
No provision in the Bill will bring further coal on to the River Tees. The discussion is pointless, because whether the port is in the private sector or continues as a trust will make no difference to the import of coal. The hon. Member for Hartlepool raised the question of the Shell depot being used. That depot is widely recognised by anyone who knows anything about the Tees port as the daftest place on the entire river to bring in coal.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I was looking at "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" and I came across a charming young photograph of the hon. Gentleman. The first thing that hit me was that he has a majority of 774, which explained why he must now be losing some sleep. The hon. Gentleman's biographical details described him as interested in regional development.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that nobody believes that the port authority does not want to use the Bill to import massive amounts of coal. It is part and parcel of the Government's policy for the privatisation of the coal industry—that is not a problem now, because they will not win the next election—to be able to import 40 million tonnes, so that they can close down all the peripheral coalfields and privatise the central coal belt. It is all part of that plan.
The hon. Gentleman admits, rightly, that he is young and inexperienced. Opposition Members—who in my case


are a little bit older, although not a lot older—have considerable experience of the deviousness of this Government. We know what they are up to.

Mr. Devlin: That has nothing to do with the Bill. I am so interested in the development of my region that I want it to have a major facility that can move goods in and out of the north of England at a competitive cost, organise transport throughout the European Community and the north of England, and that can create thousands of jobs in doing so.
Opposition Members are ignoring that. They are interested not in new opportunities, but in old opportunities. All we ever hear about from them is the old, traditional industries and the way things were done 100 years ago. The Bill is about the future of our region, the transport infrastructure, jobs and the prosperity of the people of the north-east. I will not sit here and listen to any Scotsman telling me what should or should not be brought in on the River Tees. I shall leave that to people who know what they are talking about and to business men who are ready to make decisions.

Mr. Hood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Devlin: No, the hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity.
The Bill will enable the port authority to own and invest in property throughout the region but outside the port area. It is in a good position to spot and to exploit the many exciting investment opportunities that exist in the north of England and that is entirely due to the work of the Teesside development corporation and the Tyne and Wear development corporation.
Following the attacks made on the port authority by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), Port News, the journal of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, said:
Every opportunity to invest in port facilities in Teesside has been taken up and will continue to be so. But trade goes where the major transport operator goes, not where the port goes, and if THPA wishes to develop, it must develop as a transport operator.
Investment in that new undertaking will be securely in the hands of Teessiders. There is no question that the aspersions cast by the hon. Member for Hartlepool will come to fruition. The shares will be so dispersed among the people and the pension funds of Teesside that it will simply not be possible for a major operator to acquire the lot in one fell swoop. That must be the sort of safeguard which will protect the future of the port and to which the hon. Gentleman referred when he talked about the 1966 Act.
The investment will be securely in the hands of Teessiders. It will be there for the benefit of local people and it will ensure the continued commercial success of Great Britain Ltd. I urge the House to support the Bill.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). I listened with great interest to the incandescent way in which he made his points. Earlier this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we had the remarkable spectacle of the hon. Member for Stockton, North crossing the Floor of the House. I do not think that you were in the Chair at the time.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Stockton, North did what?

Mr. Bell: I apologise. My gaze was fixed on the hon. Member for Stockton, South.
We had the interesting spectacle of the hon. Member for Stockton, South crossing the Floor of the House. He came and sat on the Opposition Benches. My recollection of constitutional history is that when an hon. Member crosses the Floor of the House he should make a speech so that we can hear why he did so. However, your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said that we should not use the word "poppycock" too often in the Chamber, so it would not be appropriate to ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on why he crossed the Floor of the House. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) says from a sedentary position, he got lost. He got lost in the debate and in the brief that he was reading.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) in his place. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said that we could not get a fish and chip shop in the Tees and Hartlepool development area from which to buy the excellent fish from Whitby. According to the hon. Member for Stockton, South, property development is the major aim of privatisation, so we can look forward to the day when the first property development of the newly constituted body is a fish and chip shop to accommodate the hon. Member for Scarborough. We shall all live in hope.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South made our points for us. He told us how successful the Tees and Hartlepool port authority was. If that is so, why does it have to be privatised? If it is so successful that it has about £30 million in cash in the bank, why must it be privatised? We have not had an answer to that point.
We heard at great length from the hon. Member for Stockton, South about the proposed shareholding of the newly privatised company. It was significant that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh did not mention what the shareholding would be. It was left to the hon. Member for Stockton, South who, with a briefing note, gave us these proposals. The last I heard of this was that the port authority had no idea how it would privatise the company, and to whom the shares would belong. I was told that it had appointed chartered accountants, in the shape of Peat, Marwick, McLintock to advise it. If we understand what the hon. Member for Stockton, South said, it is that the port authority has received advice but not passed it on to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh, because he did not say anything about it.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South made great play of the fact that there is already a terminal for coal on Teesside. He mentioned the 2 millon tonnes coming into British Steel and other users of coal in the area. He did not say something that has been forcefully said from the Opposition Benches: that what is being proposed is a common use terminal, to which coal can be imported on spec and kept in a depot until it is sent anywhere in the country, north or south. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) said, the Durham coal field has at least 12,000 employees, and two pits the size of Horden colliery closed recently. We can get no assurance about whether there will be a common use coal terminal.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South said that my Adjournment debate was an attack on the Tees and


Hartlepool port authority. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh rightly said that I praised the authority, which put the matter into perspective.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh said that everyone in the area supported the privatisation of the port authority. I have here a letter from a distinguished solicitor on Teesside who said:
In my lifetime, this Authority has been regarded as a semi public Authority which although it is autonomous in many respects it was set up for the benefit of the area. Many people must now be concerned that what has been a public body is endeavouring to 'privatise itself'. From the point of view of the people working for the concern it may well be a good thing if it comes off but whether it will be for the public benefit is quite another question.

Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman say that that solicitor was a Labour county councillor?

Mr. Bell: I can say quite emphatically that the solicitor who wrote this letter, whom I have never met, is neither a politician, nor a member of the county council or of any political party. His name is a matter for him. I am simply responding to the point made by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh. I have the letter here. It is in my file, but I have not asked the solicitor whether I can give his name on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Devlin: I shall be interested to know what authority a solicitor, who wishes to remain unnamed, and who has some thoughts on the matter, can add to the progress of the debate. I can produce letters from barristers, solicitors and business men who think that the privatisation is a jolly good thing. I have not bothered to read them all out because they have no locus in the debate.

Mr. Bell: The locus is that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh said in an intervention that the measure had the support of everyone in Teesside. He may have added the proviso that anyone with any sense would support it. I am refuting that categorically by quoting a letter written by a solicitor. I have not spoken to him about the letter and he has not told me that he wishes to remain unnamed. As a member of the public, he is entitled to express his view through a Member of this place on the Floor of the House.
I shall refer briefly to some of the other comments of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh. He said on two occasions that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are morons. It is interesting that he used that expression, which I presume is fully parliamentary because nothing was said to suggest that it was otherwise. The hon. Gentleman then said that I cleverly introduced a point in my Adjournment debate. It seems that, on the one hand, one can be a moron and, on the other, clever. The two terms, if I may use a legal expression, are mutually exclusive. It seems that the hon. Gentleman wished to get his own back on me for calling him a "Champagne Charlie" not long ago. I used that description because he had authorised and sponsored a function within the House for Conservative Members to persuade them to support the Bill.

Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman said that the soiree was for Conservative Members. He and all his hon. Friends were invited, and none of them had the courtesy to attend.

Mr. Bell: Ideology must be sparse in the Conservative party if Conservative Back-Bench Members have to be invited to drink champagne in the House to encourage

them to support an ideological commitment to privatisation. After 10 years in office, it may be that privatisation is no longer the mode with the Tory party. Why did the hon. Gentleman have to bring along champagne to persuade his hon. Friends to support the Bill tonight?

Mr. Leadbitter: Do I understand that the champagne party took place? I received an invitation and I asked how much it would cost. The public relations people in London referred the matter to the THPA but I still did not receive an answer. I was genuinely worried about the Bill coming into the House. I was also worried that free drink and some biscuits and cheese, or whatever, were on offer. Was my hon. Friend told what the cost of the freebie was?

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh was right to say that I was invited to the party. As I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Cook) was not. No Labour Member attended the function. That shows that there is still principle within the Opposition, if there is not among Conservative Members.

Mr. Alan Meale: I am worried because during debates on a previous privatisation of our ports there were suggestions about champagne and smoked salmon being made available so that Conservative Members could nip out of the Chamber to drink and eat at their leisure free of charge. Perhaps you will give some thought to the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with a view to determining whether such practices by those who are engaged in the privatisation of our ports are correct in parliamentary terms.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us continue with the debate. That issue has nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that you were about to answer the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield on my behalf. He has made the valid point that we are concerned about the use of facilities within the House in an effort to influence Members of this place on how they should vote.
As this point has been raised, I shall quote from my statement to the press, which reads:
Richard Holt is inviting a host of Champagne Charlies in order to gain support for the privatisation of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority. It is a common and often condemned Tory practice to wine and dine those they seek to influence when Bills are before Parliament. Labour MPs will boycott the function and hold it up for the ridicule and contempt that it deserves.
That answers the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. I congratulate the hon. Member for Langbaurgh because when I described him as a "Champagne Charlie", he came back to say that he was an orange juice addict.

Mr. Frank Cook: If it is acceptable for the promoters of the Bill to seek support from the payroll vote by offering champagne suppers in the House with the odd touch of sherbet, perhaps it would be equally fair for Opposition Members to seek to force a vote on each of the Estimates tonight, in which case there will be about seven votes, which will keep Conservative Members here until about midnight.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a point that had not occurred to me until now. The so-called payroll vote may be wheeled in at some time this evening


to assist the hon. Member for Langbaurgh. Without in any way challenging the earlier ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have two points to make about that. First, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh categorically stated that the Minister, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), cannot take a view on the Bill. Those are the very words that he used. Nevertheless, the Under-Secretary of State then took an extremely clear view, which we can all read in tomorrow's Hansard. The view that he has expressed many times is that, in the offing, in some form or another, is the privatisation of nearly 50 ports, ranging from London and Dover to small fishing harbours. Apparently, that is what the Government are considering. Transport Ministers are studying whether legislation is needed to pave the way for trust ports, which handle nearly half the country's seaborne cargo trade and a lot of passenger traffic, to be converted into private companies. Therefore, the Government's position is clear.
I quoted earlier from what the Under-Secretary is reported as saying in Hansard. I now refer to a press statement, which reads:
Last week in a House of Common's debate Shipping Minister Patrick McLoughlin made clear his support for converting trust ports into commercial companies. A spokesman for the Department of Transport confirmed that ministers were 'looking at options', but indicated that it would be a struggle to find the immediate time for the necessary enabling legislation.
We have had several accounts suggesting that this is a Government measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has made it clear that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh was flatly contradicted by the Under-Secretary. It is probably a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
Secondly, the former Secretary of State for Transport was in the House earlier this evening. If we refer back to press comments, we are left in no doubt that it was the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who instigated this Bill. That is made clear from a speech that was reported on 11 March 1988 in a local newspaper, which reads:
Private eyes focus on us".
The article clearly states:
Transport Secretary Paul Channon caused some ripples on the Tees when he raised the spectre of privatisation this week. Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority chief executive John Hackney was in London to hear Mr. Channon say that Britain's 74 publicly owned ports are prima facie candidates for going into private hands.
The THPA did not leave the matter there, at simply listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. A further press cutting of 5 April 1988 said:
Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority is seeking clarification on why the Government has asked for its views on ports going private. At present the THPA is an independent body, with board members drawn from local industry, local councils and the TUC.
So we come again to one of the central points of the Bill—whether there is any local accountability. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh said that there was no accountability at all to the local community. Yet we see clearly that Tees and Hartlepool port authority, while an independent body, had board members drawn from local industry, local councils and the TUC. It is therefore clear that this is a Government-inspired, Government-instigated and Government-backed Bill. We shall see as we go on, in Committee and out of Committee, just how much support the Government give to the Bill.
I fully accept the Government's commitment to privatisation. I do not accept that the Executive ought to use the legislature for their own purposes. I made very clear my own view of privatisation as a Government measure in a speech that I made on the Budget in 1988, when I said that from the point of view of the Conservative party
The concept of privatisation is legitimate. It was an ideological commitment that the Conservative party made at the time of the 1979 general election."—[Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 1027.]

Mr. Frank Cook: My hon. Friend introduces a study of the concept of privatisation, but is it not a fact that privatisation as we normally understand it suggests that people pay money in order to acquire property? In this instance it will be quite different. People will be paying money for shares that will be going into a company which will then become their property. So they will be putting money into their own bank. Is not that exactly the same as if I were to sell my hon. Friend my house for £100,000, guaranteeing him that the £100,000 would be in my house when he came to occupy it?

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has said that any fool can sell a company at half price, and we have seen over the years, under the Government's privatisation scheme, a consistent underselling of shares in companies being privatised. Then we have seen those shares move into pension funds and banks, again to the detriment of the community.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, made the point that the shares would stay within the community, but he could not guarantee that. He can no more give us a guarantee than Mr. Tiny Rowland could receive a guarantee from Mr. Fayed. When Mr. Rowland arranged for Mr. Fayed to buy the shares in House of Fraser, he suddenly discovered that Mr. Fayed not only held those shares but had bought others and become the majority shareholder. We can see clearly that, once shares are in the public domain, we do not know and cannot tell where they will end up. One thing that we know, and we have seen it in the sale of public assets over the past few years, is that the City of London ends up with the shares.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Does my hon. Friend feel that many of those shares will be bought in the area, which will be affected by not just this change, but the subsequent change that will lead to the mass importation of coal into the area? So will people in places such as Keir Hardie Terrace, Shotton colliery, which is nearby, or Easington, where my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) was born, be the prime candidates, as they get kicked out of their jobs, to pick up those shares so that they have a rake-off from this development? I doubt whether anything such as that will occur.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, whitch brings me back to the speech by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh, when he made the point about those who lose their jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) pointed out that about 70 jobs in Hartlepool had been lost and that those who had stayed in the industry had had to take pay cuts. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh talked about the twin curses of trust ports and the dock labour scheme. We have seen the nefarious


effects of the abolition of the dock labour scheme, in the shape of a reduced labour force, both on the Tees and in Hartlepool, and a reduction in salaries. My hon. Friend has a valid point. What will people be able to do? Will they be able to buy shares at half price and, possibly, sell them to the City of London? Will the City then decide the appropriate investment policy for Tees and Hartlepool?

Mr. Jack Thompson: Suppose that local people acquire shares and, after a year or two, sell them to others with a particular industrial interest, such as the importation of coal. In those circumstances, control of the port would ultimately be in the hands of people who had only one thing in mind—the importation of coal. Or it might be radioactive waste or a whole range of other things. That would be a monopoly. It is what happened in the old days. The port that is shared by my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) was owned by the coal owners. It was they who determined what should happen. That is exactly what could happen in this situation.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Some of us remember Mr. Eric Varley, who at one time was Secretary of State for Energy in a Labour Government. Mr. Varley left to become chairman of Coalite. But Coalite was taken over, and Mr. Varley is no longer doing that job. What will happen to the Tees and Hartlepool assets if asset strippers move in? It would not be necessary, in order to secure control, to buy 51 per cent. of the company; a controlling interest could be secured by acquiring something like 29 per cent.
We are talking about the swinging '90s, but what will happen after that—or perhaps even during the '90s—if people, having acquired a controlling interest, decide that there are richer pickings elsewhere in the country or on the continent? They might decide that they would be better off if they had their headquarters in Brussels. Where are the guarantees? Once a company is privatised, once it becomes a company in the public domain, once its shares are being traded in the City of London, no one can tell where the shares will end up. No one can tell who might make share raids. No one can tell what course the company will take. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) said, it might even go into a business such as nuclear waste or the importation of coal, and the House could do absolutely nothing to stop it. In the context of this legislation, there is no such thing as a golden share. The Government have no power to prevent any of the things that we know could happen.
I want to come now to some of the more important points that were made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber at the moment. He said that, in the past, the investments of Tees and Hartlepool were all related to ports or port authority work. He was quite specific. If he thinks again and looks at the facts, he may come to regret that statement. Tees and Hartlepool invested in Tac Display Co. Ltd. On 13 January 1986 a document was prepared for the chairman and members of Tees and Hartlepool port authority, explaining
Tac Display Co. Ltd., a privately owned company based on North Shields, whose business is the design and manufacture of shop display units".

The hon. Member for Stockton, South said very clearly that the company invested only in port-related projects. That is not the case.

Mr. Frank Cook: In Cleveland.

Mr. Bell: Yes, in Cleveland, which is our esteemed county.
The business of this company was the design and manufacture of shop display units. It had five divisions. It had a jewellery display manufacturing division. I should like the hon. Member for Stockton, South to tell me what that has to do with a port authority. It had a retail display manufacturing division. The hon. Member for Stockton, South might like to tell us what that has to do with a port authority. It had a shop fitting division. The hon. Member for Stockton, South might like to tell us what that has to do—[Interruption.]

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of us have been here since the beginning of the debate. We have been paying great attention and participating in the exchanges. Some hon. Members are doing neither; in fact, they are causing great disturbance to those of us who want to continue our interest in the Bill. I ask you to take them to task.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Perhaps those hon. Members will have regard to what has just been said.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful for your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and for the intervention of my hon. Friend.
I was analysing an investment of Tees and Hartlepool port authority—Tac Display Co. Ltd. It also had a manufacturing of vacuum forming and joinery division. Again the hon. Member for Stockton, South, who has just returned to the House, might like to tell us what that has to do with a port authority. Earlier the hon. Gentleman made a categorical statement that the investments of Tees and Hartlepool port authority over the past few years were related entirely to port matters. Therefore, he might like to tell me what that division has to do with port investment.

Mr. Harry Barnes: What is happening elsewhere in the House is interesting. The hon. Members for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) are having a discussion. One is the sponsor of the Bill and the other was the sponsor of the Associated British Ports legislation that allowed millions of tonnes of coal to be brought into the country. This is a similar measure. It is designed to try to kill off the north-east coalfield, just as the other legislation was designed to kill off the Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire coalfield.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right in his reference to a relationship between the Associated British Ports Bill and this Bill. It is a copycat Bill. It would not be before the House if Tees and Hartlepool did not want to follow the route taken by Associated British Ports. The Bill has a similar design and concept. It will affect the mining industry in Durham and in Yorkshire. As I develop my theme, I shall show that there is no way that the hon. Member for Stockton, South can wriggle out of the fact that there is potential for a common use coal terminal on Teesside.

Mr. Devlin: I thought that I answered that when I made my speech. It does not matter whether the port is in the private sector. I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's description of the Bill. It is not a copycat Bill. The legislation sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was to extend the port of Immingham——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be unwise for us to have a rerun of the Associated British Ports (No 2) Bill. That has nothing to do with Tees and Hartlepool.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have preferred the hon. Member for Stockton, South, who made a categorical statement about the port authority investing only in port-related matters, to respond to the fact that the authority has invested in TAC Display Co. Ltd., which has five divisions—a jewellery display manufacturing division, a retail display manufacturing division, a shop fitting division, a vacuum forming and joinery division and a design division. I shall give way if he wants to recant what he said earlier, or rephrase it. As he does not want to do so, I shall continue.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am astonished that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) should be so surprised at the lack of consistency in the statements made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). After all, he did a 180-degree turn on northern arts between 28 November and 13 March; he got it totally wrong on the poll tax; and the other evening he voted in one Division and then did not bother to vote in the next.

Mr. Bell: It is appropriate for my hon. Friend to refer to the inconsistency of the hon. Member for Stockton, South. I am simply responding to his earlier statement that all the investments of Tees and Hartlepool port authority were port-related. Let me refer again to the investment in TAC Display Co. Ltd. Let me quote from an interesting and revealing document circulated to the chairman and members of the THPA:
The question must be asked as to why should the Authority invest in a company which has performed so poorly over the last two years? The first point is that there has been a marked turnround over the past few months, output has increased, productivity has improved, and a loss at the end of October of £12,000 has more than been offset by profits in November and December and it is realistically expected that the projected profit will be in the region of £20,000. The company is very highly geared and therefore any equity investment will reduce the high cost of financing which has reduced its ability to grow, and probably the most important feature is that management has now got control over the company and is exercising financial disciplines with the assistance of a regional manager of a major bank.
It was so successful that it lost £150,000. We are hearing so much tonight about the need to pass this privatising measure because the port cannot invest in other companies.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh phrased his argument very cleverly. At no time did he say that any of the investments made in the 1980s were illegal, or ultra vires the company; at no time did he seek to address the question whether powers already existed for the THPA to do everything that it has done for several years. The Under-Secretary is listening carefully and attentively——

Mr. Harry Barnes: In fact, the Minister is listening to his hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). There is a three-way connection: the

Minister, who represents a constituency in west Derbyshire, with which masses of ports are associated, is tied in with the Bill. We are discussing a Government measure tonight.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It has arrested the attention of the Under-Secretary, who is now listening with great attention. His predecessor as shipping Minister, Lord Brabazon of Tara, was fully apprised of the facts about the THPA's investment in TAC Display Co. Ltd.
The Minister's predecessor was written to by the predecessor of the hon. Member for Stockton, South, Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth, who wrote expressing anxiety about the investment. The Minister's answer was significant. He made it clear that investment in a company such as TAC Display Co. Ltd. was entirely a matter for the authority. He said—in a ministerial letter—
As I understand it, the Authority has the statutory power to make such an investment.
If the statutory power exists for a private authority or the trust port to invest in jewellery, in retail display manufacturing, in shop fittings, in a vacuum forming and joinery division, and in design work, and if the Minister of the Crown says that the investment is in order, why are we here tonight? Why is it necessary for us to go through he process of this debate, to have to listen to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh and the Minister, whose remarks, to his credit, were all about privatisation, a subject to which we had referred earlier?

Mr. Leadbitter: I, too, brought to the attention of the House the list to which my hon. Friend is referring, and I reached the same conclusion as he. It is important for my hon. Friend to impress on the House the fact that that list of activities poses an important question. If the authority can undertake all those activities under present legislation, what does privatisation have to offer? It seems that nothing new could be undertaken, so we are left wondering whether there is a reason for the measure other than privatisation. Perhaps the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has not told us that reason.

Mr. Harry Barnes: A hidden agenda?

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend says, from a sedentary position, that there might be a hidden agenda. After some months of public debate, we have not been able to get to the real hidden agenda.
I explained that the company lost £150,000. A liquidator was appointed in August 1986, and one is left wondering what happened to that £150,000. Did it represent a dead loss to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, which provided an independent report to the board of that authority prior to the investment being made, how and why did the investment go wrong and why did the authority get involved in it in the first place?
The hon. Member for Stockton, South said that all the investments of that authority at that time were port-related. There was a company named Mercury Maintenance Ltd., which proved to be another fine investment by the authority. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh was right to say that, in an Adjournment debate, I praised the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, but my praise was for its programme for disabled workers. We are now considering the financial side of the authority, where a different picture emerges.
Mercury Maintenance Ltd. changed its name to Hercules Security Fabrications Ltd. The authority invested £30 in that company, but a loan of £136,000 was given. The directors in September 1986 were Mr. John Hackney, who is the present chief executive, and Mr. John Tholen,' who was the former chief executive. The company was found to be hopelessly insolvent as at November 1987.
The authority invested in another company, in accordance with the powers that it has had since 1966. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool was instrumental in incorporating the Hartlepool port into the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, and credit is due to him for his efforts in that matter many years ago.
There was a £25,000 investment in LPC Elements Ltd. by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority in December 1985. The director remained unchanged, Mr. John Hackney and Mr. John Tholen. According to the company's accounts, it lost £10,534 as at 1988.
We come to Casair Aviation and an investment of £5,000, with £25,000 given by way of mortgage for an aircraft. Again, the directors were as previously. In other words, Tees and Hartlepool port authority board members find themselves on boards of companies in which they have invested. Casair was hopelessly insolvent when it was finally bought out by Northern Aviation Limited, but the accounts were not to hand.
Another company in which Tees and Hartlepool port authority has invested in accordance with its powers under the 1966 Act is called Boldpath. It was given a loan of £510,000. The hon. Member for Stockton, South said that the authority wanted to become a property developer on Teesside or in the north. He said that it could not develop into property because it did not have the powers. But Boldpath is a property company in which the authority invested in September 1986. Against a company with capital of £100, the authority lent £510,000. It is not surprising that, when we ask for statements from the authority about the variety of its investments, we do not find them in the balance sheets or its public accounts and we cannot elicit specific information on each company in any statement.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) back in his place, no doubt hot from the 1922 Committee Thursday night meeting. Another company in which the authority invested in accordance with its powers was Quality Pipework Services. What does the hon. Member for Stockton, South think that Quality Pipeworks Services has to do with a port authority? The authority invested £40,000 in that company and lent it £80,000. Again, the directors were Mr. John Tholen and Mr. John Hackney, the former and present chief executives. That investment was so good for Tees and Hartlepool that it got its investment back at the price it paid for it.
Why should we stop at one, two, three or four companies? Let us examine the entire record of the authority as it relates to its bid for privatisation. What about Storefreight, a company in which the authority invested £100,000? Again, the directors were Mr. John Hackney and Mr. John Tholen. It was the only investment out of ten which turned out to be profitable.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am so interested in the information that my hon. Friend is imparting to the House that I

should like him to clarify whether the investments took place when Mr. Tholen was acting as chief executive or after he departed.

Mr. Bell: All the investments that I have before me were made in 1986. Hercules Security Fabrication was a £30 investment in 1986–87. All the investments were probably made at about the time when Mr. Tholen was chief executive, but Mr. John Hackney, the present chief executive, became a member of the board of all the companies to which I referred.
Storefreight, in which £100,000 was invested, is now a profitable company because it is now 100 per cent. owned by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. It is the only company to be found in the public accounts. When we ask questions about other investments, we are told to wait until the new accounts are published next month. Perhaps as a result of the intervention tonight on the Floor of the House there will be a modification in the accounts.
I wish to put some questions to the sponsor of the Bill and his ally, the hon. Member for Stockton, South. How can the House allow the privatisation of a company which, when it had the power to do so, invested so badly and unwisely? We do not know how much it has cost the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, but it runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds. We cannot obtain an answer to that question.

Mr. Meale: The information that my hon. Friend imparts to the House is rather alarming. He has read out details of companies involved in marinas, development agencies and fabrication plants. Is he sure that they are the only companies involved? Perhaps we should not proceed any further until we get more details of all the companies in which investments have been made.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend anticipates my remarks. I have kept to the very end of my observations on financing another company of which no one has ever heard. I have spoken to three directors of the company who have never heard of it. It is Mountjoy Finance. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North, with his great City contacts, has heard of Mountjoy Finance. What are we to make of that company? According to a report submitted to me on 24 January this year, the company was incorporated on 14 February 1986. Its principal activity was the making of long-term loans.
Again, the hon. Member for Stockton, South may be able to tell me whether the making of long-term loans is a port-related activity. The company's assets are fixed at £350,000. Its current assets are set at £50,013. Its current liabilities are £500,000 and its net worth is £13.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am staggered to hear that information, especially bearing in mind my hon. Friend's statement that he has spoken to three nominated directors of the company who did not know that they were directors. Did I hear aright, or have I got my wires crossed?

Mr. Bell: No. I specifically asked three directors of the company, one of whom is no longer a director, whether they had ever heard of Mountjoy Finance, and they all answered that they had not.

Mr. Frank Cook: Can that be legal?

Mr. Bell: It may be prudent for me to ignore my hon. Friend's sedentary intervention.
Let us talk about the net worth of Mountjoy Finance—£13. That is the net worth of a company that can give long-term loans. That £13 represents 13 ordinary shares of £1 each, allotted and fully paid. The company's authorised capital is 100 ordinary shares of £1 each. For the benefit of the House, let me give the names of the shareholders. Northern Investors Company Ltd, Centro house, 3 Cloth market, Newcastle upon Tyne, has three £1 shares. Ferguson Industrial Holdings, Appleby Castle, Cumbria has four ordinary shares. Melville Street Investments (Edinburgh) Ltd., 4 Melville street, Edinburgh, has four ordinary shares. Then, to and behold, at the bottom comes Tees and Hartlepool port authority, Queen's square, Middlesbrough, which has two £1 shares in the company.

Mr. Frank Cook: Do I understand from that list that the only Cleveland interest in the shares was that of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority?

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is right. According to the information on record at Companies house, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, with its two shares, is the only Cleveland company involved.
I can go further. The investment is not listed in the Tees and Hartlepool port authority's annual report to which I referred earlier, and one of the four directors of the finance house—if I may call it that—is Mr. John Proctor Hackney, of 50 The Holme, Great Broughton, Middlesbrough, who is listed as finance director but who is now the chief executive of Tees and Hartlepool port authority. Mr. Hackney was appointed a director of the company on 30 May 1989.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does my hon Friend think that the Daily Mirror should campaign for a public inquiry into this matter?

Mr. Bell: I will simply say, modestly and prudently, that Mr. Arthur Scargill is a much-maligned man when one studies the details of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority's financial statements.
The financial status report to which I refer—lest there be any doubt about this, I have the official documents with me—prepared on 24 January 1990 stated that the directors have relied upon the exemptions for individual accounts under sections 247 to 249 of the Companies Act 1985. That allows the company to file only a modified balance sheet and a limited number of notes instead of full accounts. The company qualified for this exemption, as it is classed as a small company within the meaning of the Companies Act.
The comments on the financial status report are revealing and show that the company is run at a break-even point, receiving and paying £48,073—worth of interest a year. It is interesting to note that they receive and pay the same amount of interest.
The principal lenders—now we get to the heart of the matter, the reason why the Tees and Hartlepool port authority is investing in a company for £2—are the shareholders. They have extended £350,000 of long-term finance to the company. As the company is in the hands of its shareholders, and only has a small £13 paid-up share capital, this is what the financial status report says:
we would advise you to seek a parental guarantee if you are considering extending this company a line of credit.
That is with £13 cash in bank on the balance sheet as of 30 September 1987. Here we have it: a £2 investment; a

£350,000 loan; one is warned to seek a parental guarantee before extending the company a line of credit; and again £13 in share capital in the bank.
According to the financial statement of 30 September 1988,
The company's activity is the making of long term loans. The directors consider that the result for the year is satisfactory.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh looks somewhat disconsolate. He has not listed a single investment by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority during the past—[Interruption.]

Mr. Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many Opposition Members and some Conservative Members—to be fair—have waited patiently here all night listening to the debate. Many more Opposition Members wish to participate in the debate but we cannot hear a word because of the rabble standing over there. Can they be brought to order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps those hon. Members who are not listening to the debate will talk quietly.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Holt: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Harry Barnes: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order after the Division.

Mr. Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that I shall take it after the Division.

The House having divided: Ayes 126, Noes 29.

Division No. 132]
[10.37 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Churchill, Mr


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amess, David
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arbuthnot, James
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Conway, Derek


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Bellingham, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Emery, Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowis, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fookes, Dame Janet


Brazier, Julian
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Buck, Sir Antony
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Burns, Simon
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burt, Alistair
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butterfill, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Harris, David


Chapman, Sydney
Hayes, Jerry






Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Patnick, Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Holt, Richard
Portillo, Michael


Hordern, Sir Peter
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Irvine, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Janman, Tim
Rowe, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lang, Ian
Shelton, Sir William


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lightbown, David
Stevens, Lewis


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lord, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Summerson, Hugo


Maclean, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thorne, Neil


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thurnham, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tracey, Richard


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Mellor, David
Walden, George


Mills, Iain
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waller, Gary


Monro, Sir Hector
Widdecombe, Ann


Neale, Gerrard
Wilshire, David


Neubert, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)



Norris, Steve
Tellers for the Ayes:


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Mr. Tim Devlin and Mr. William Hague.


Page, Richard





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Barron, Kevin
Lamond, James


Beith, A. J.
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Meale, Alan


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Nellist, Dave


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Pike, Peter L.


Cummings, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Ruddock, Joan


Dixon, Don
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Doran, Frank
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Fisher, Mark
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


George, Bruce



Gordon, Mildred
Tellers for the Noes:


Haynes, Frank
Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Stuart Bell.


Home Robertson, John



Hood, Jimmy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have two points of order. One arises from your refusal to allow a point of order during the Division. The point of order that I wanted to raise during the Division was on whether you would think again about accepting the closure motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is proving my point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that it is not in order to dispute the judgment of the Chair on whether to accept a closure motion. The Chair accepted it, it is then for the House to make a decision. That is what happened and that was in order.

Mr. Barnes: rose——

Mr. Bell: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have ruled on the point of order. If hon. Members have a different point of order, I shall take it. We must now proceed to a Division on Second Reading.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 26.

Division No. 133]
[10.51 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Janman, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Amess, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Arbuthnot, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Knapman, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Knowles, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Lang, Ian


Bellingham, Henry
Lawrence, Ivan


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lightbown, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lilley, Peter


Boswell, Tim
Lord, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bowis, John
Maclean, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Mans, Keith


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Mills, Iain


Burns, Simon
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Burt, Alistair
Neale, Gerrard


Butterfill, John
Neubert, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Carttiss, Michael
Norris, Steve


Cash, William
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Page, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Patnick, Irvine


Churchill, Mr
Porter, David (Waveney)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Portillo, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Conway, Derek
Riddick, Graham


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Rowe, Andrew


Cran, James
Ryder, Richard


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Sackville, Hon Tom


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Durant, Tony
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Emery, Sir Peter
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Fallon, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Stevens, Lewis


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Gale, Roger
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gill, Christopher
Summerson, Hugo


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Thorne, Neil


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Tracey, Richard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Trotter, Neville


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Walden, George


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Waller, Gary


Harris, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Hayes, Jerry
Wilshire, David


Heathcoat-Amory, David



Holt, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hordern, Sir Peter
Mr. Tim Devlin and Mr. William Hague.


Irvine, Michael



Jack, Michael





NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dixon, Don


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Beith, A. J.
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Haynes, Frank


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cummings, John
Lamond, James


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Leadbitter, Ted






Nellist, Dave
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Pike, Peter L.
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)



Prescott, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Ruddock, Joan
Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Harry Barnes.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to challenge your ruling in any way, but would it be in order if, through you, I put it on the record, for the information of the Secretary of State for Transport, that I shall be calling for a formal Department of Trade and Industry investigation into the affairs of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority and into the financial shenanigans that I have revealed tonight on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to page 366 of "Erskine May", relating to an hon. Member raising a point of order during a Division, only when a question of order arises during a Division may a Member speak seated and covered. That implies that there is a procedure for raising a point of order during a Division and, like many other hon. Members, I have used that procedure in the past.
My point of order is whether I should have been prevented from raising a point of order during the Division. This relates to the point of order that has just been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). I had been attempting to raise another point of order, which it is now too late to raise, about the nature of the Division that was then taking place, given the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, which I feel should lead to a Department of Trade and Industry inquiry, and affects our procedure in relation to this legislation.
Although I feel aggrieved about it, I accept that that has now passed. My point of order relates to whether, by that precedent, hon. Members will be refused the right to raise points of order during a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No new precedent has been created. This matter is at the discretion of the Chair. Depending on the circumstances, it is usual for the Chair

to take a point of order during a Division if it relates directly to the conduct of the Division, such as whether the Division bells are ringing.
I am sure that, from the point of view of common sense, the whole House will appreciate—the hon. Gentleman himself made this point—that, when a Division is taking place and hon. Members are going through the Division Lobbies, it is exceedingly difficult in practical terms for the Chair or anyone else in the House to hear what is being said by the hon. Member who is raising the point of order.
From the points that the hon. Gentleman raised during the first Division, it is clear that he was not making a point of order relating to the Division. It is sensible and practicable in those circumstances for the Chair to use its discretion in this way—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and to take points of order after the Division when they can be properly heard and properly dealt with—

Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clearly within your recollection—this has happened during the seven years that I have been a Member of the House—that there have been many occasions when the Chair has accepted points of order during a Division——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nellist: I have not made the point of order yet.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to question the judgment of the Chair. I am sure that he does not intend to do that. We now come——

Mr. Nellist: On a different point of order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nellist: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now come——

Mr. Nellist: It is a different point of order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is a different point of order, I shall hear the hon. Gentleman, but it must be a different point of order.

Mr. Nellist: It is a totally different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you explain to me under which Standing Order the occupant of the Chair can decide whether or not a point of order is valid if the case has not even been made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with that point of order, and there is nothing that I can add.

Orders of the Day — Estimates

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &amp;c.), and the Order [12 March], as modified by the Order yesterday.

Orders of the Day — ESTIMATES, 1989–90 (AIR) VOTE A

Motion made, and Question put.

That during the year ending on 31st March 1990 an additional number not exceeding 3,800 all ranks be maintained for the Royal Air Force Reserve—[Mr. Fallon.]

The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 3.

Division No. 134]
[11.10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Amess, David
Irvine, Michael


Amos, Alan
Jack, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Janman, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Baldry, Tony
Knapman, Roger


Barron, Kevin
Lamond, James


Beith, A. J.
Leadbitter, Ted


Bell, Stuart
Lilley, Peter


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Boswell, Tim
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bowis, John
Maclean, David


Brazier, Julian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Mans, Keith


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Buck, Sir Antony
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Burns, Simon
Meale, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Mills, Iain


Butterfill, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Neubert, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Norris, Steve


Carttiss, Michael
Pike, Peter L.


Cash, William
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Chapman, Sydney
Riddick, Graham


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Ryder, Richard


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Devlin, Tim
Shaw, David (Dover)


Dixon, Don
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Durant, Tony
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Emery, Sir Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Fallon, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Stevens, Lewis


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Fisher, Mark
Summerson, Hugo


Gale, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gill, Christopher
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Trotter, Neville


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Waller, Gary


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Hague, William



Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Harris, David
Mr. David Lightbown, and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Haynes, Frank





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Tellers for the Noes:


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Ronnie Campbell.


Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ESTIMATES, 1990–91 (NAVY) VOTE A

Motion made, and Question put,

That during the year ending on 31st March 1991 a number not exceeding 66,800 all ranks be maintained for Naval service.—[Mr. Fallon.]

The House divided: Ayes 82, Noes 7.

Division No. 135]
[11.21 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Holt, Richard


Amess, David
Irvine, Michael


Amos, Alan
Jack, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Janman, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Baldry, Tony
Knapman, Roger


Barron, Kevin
Lamond, James


Beith, A. J.
Leadbitter, Ted


Bell, Stuart
Lightbown, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lilley, Peter


Boswell, Tim
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bowis, John
Maclean, David


Brazier, Julian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Mans, Keith


Buck, Sir Antony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Burns, Simon
Mills, Iain


Burt, Alistair
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Butterfill, John
Neubert, Michael


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Norris, Steve


Carrington, Matthew
Pike, Peter L.


Carttiss, Michael
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Chapman, Sydney
Riddick, Graham


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Ryder, Richard


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Devlin, Tim
Shaw, David (Dover)


Dixon, Don
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Durant, Tony
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Emery, Sir Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Fallon, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Stevens, Lewis


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Fisher, Mark
Summerson, Hugo


Gale, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gill, Christopher
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Waller, Gary


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Widdecombe, Ann


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)



Hague, William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Haynes, Frank





NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Skinner, Dennis


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)



Cummings, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Gordon, Mildred
Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Alan Meale.


Nellist, Dave



Salmond, Alex

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ESTIMATES, 1990–91 (ARMY), VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1991 a number not exceeding 172,550 all ranks he maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 4,596 for the Home Service Force, a number not exceeding 109,805 for the Individual Reserves, a number not exceeding 85,364 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 6,800 for the Ulster Defence Regiment.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Orders of the Day — ESTIMATES, 1990–91 (AIR), VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1991, a number not exceeding 95,240 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 16,150 for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and a number not exceeding 2,550 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1989–90

Resolved,
That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,951,397,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 179 and 230.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Orders of the Day — ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1988–89

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £10,366,965.82, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended 31st March 1989, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 177.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the Resolutions agreed to this day, relating to Supplementary Estimates, 1989–90, Estimates, Excesses, 1988–89 and Estimates 1990–91 (Vote on Account), by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Peter Lilley and Mr. Richard Ryder.

Mr. Peter Lilley accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1989, 1990 and 1991: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Coal Industry Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Orders of the Day — Coal Industry Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, after clause 4, insert the following new clause—
Opencast coal working: conservation requirements
For section 3 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 (preservation of amenity) there shall be substituted—

Preservation of amenity

3. In formulating any proposals as to the working of coal by opencast operations or the carrying out of operations incidental to such working or the restoration of land affected by such working or by such incidental operations, the British Coal Corporation (in this Act referred to as 'the Corporation') or any person who holds or is applying for a licence under section 36(2) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946—
(a) shall have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest; and
(b) shall so far as possible ensure that the proposals include measures to mitigate any adverse effect which the proposed activities may have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects."

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Baldry.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 31, in the title, line 5, at end insert
and the preservation of amenity in connection with opencast coal working".

Mr. Kevin Barron: The amendment has a history. On Report in the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said:
If the Government purblindly and stupidly insist on going ahead with a tenfold increase in the maximum size of opencast private workings, there should be parallel strengthening of the planning laws to protect local people."—[Official Report, 16 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 211.]
My hon. Friend was told by the Minister to leave the matter to the planning authorities and that such amendments were superfluous.
It was then argued in the other place—quite well, as I understand it—that, if the Government intended to allow for a massive expansion of opencasting in the private sector, they should ensure that the private sector operates within the same framework as British Coal. Even in the other place the Government argued that environmental failures were the fault of a lack of enforcement of planning conditions. I am pleased to say, however, that when the vote was taken in the other place, the Minister's noble Friends disagreed with him. Tonight the Government have returned to the House with an amendment that they rejected in principle in January.
It is essential that the good practice of the British Coal opencast executive is extended to the private sector. I am well acquainted with examples of the good practice that the executive has adopted for many years in my constituency, where we have what might be regarded as a flagship project—the Rother Valley country park, which provides recreation for many people in the area. Before the site was opencasted, the initial plan for Bedgreave mill, a


medieval mill in the middle of the site, was that it should be destroyed, so that the opencasting could be carried on without interference. I am pleased to say that the arguments advanced at the time—long before I became a Member of the House—were won. The mill was kept and they opencasted round it. It now serves as a very good visitors' centre for the country park, and many school-children from my constituency and others use the mill for educational purposes.
Next to country park is an opencast mine on the site of Brookhouse colliery, which closed late in 1985 after the miners' strike. The work taking place there relates directly to the Lords amendment—the one that the Government told us we did not want. A very good ecological experiment has been taking place. Reeds have been moved out of some ponds on that site and placed, at the right time of year, in some neighbouring ponds about half a mile away. That has been done to protect newts' eggs laid on the leaves of those reeds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Really?"] I see that hon. Members are interested in this. The ponds contain crested, smooth and palmate newts. The opencast executive has moved the plants—and the eggs on them—so that those species will survive and can be brought back to the site when it is restored.
Other sites in close proximity are being treated in the same way to save their habitats. At the Tinsley Park site in Sheffield, the executive is moving some acid heathland soil and resettling it about two miles away because it contains the seeds of many varieties of plants that grow in that area and in no other in industrial Sheffield. The soil has been relaid on a nature reserve by the ecology unit of Sheffield city council—a well-known good Socialist council.
Those actions have been taken by British Coal to protect and preserve the environment as best it can. They are the result of years of expertise in such work. However, in the early stages of the Bill, we were confronted with expansion in the private sector, where there is little expertise in looking after the environment and related problems. The rapid expansion of the private sector allowed in the Bill would rely on an expertise that it does not have at present.
We are pleased that the Government decided not to throw out the amendment made in the other place. We recognise that, while opencast coal mining is sometimes necessary, the environment needs to be protected.
I congratulate the Government, because this is one of the few occasions when I have seen them show some common sense, even if it was forced on them in the other place by some of their hon. Friends. We gladly accept and support the amendment.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I welcome the Government's acceptance of the Lords amendment, as it sets new standards for the opencast executive's working practices for the natural environment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has said, British Coal has a good reputation in that respect, but it is useful and important to extend the legislation in this way.
I am anxious to find out from the Minister tonight, when he replies to this short debate, whether the new standards set for this aspect of opencast coal mining—the natural environment—by the Lords amendment and the attitude that it reflects will permeate the Department's

thinking about opencast coal mining in general. Will planning applications for new opencast sites be considered in the light of that new attitude?
The Minister will know that British Coal is proposing to develop an opencast site of 350 acres in my constituency. There are 3 million tonnes of coal there and British Coal is proposing to develop 1·25 million tonnes. The site is right in the middle of Stoke-on-Trent, within half a mile of the city centre, surrounded by housing, industry and commerce. I believe that it is a precedent for British Coal to attempt to develop an opencast site in the middle of one of the largest cities in the country, and it is a precedent that is entirely wrong. I gain some hope from the amendment and from what I take to be a new attitude.
Although the site is in the middle of a large city, it is also an important natural habitat—a green site of some 650 acres, surrounded by housing and close to the city centre. It is heathland, with wildlife of various kinds—flora and fauna. People walk and jog on that land and exercise their dogs. It is an important part of their life.
If the thinking behind the Lords amendment begins to permeate the Department's thinking, and that of the Department of the Environment when planning applications are considered, it will be impossible for British Coal successfully to pursue this opencast application in Stoke-on-Trent. All the 250,000 people in Stoke-on-Trent are totally against that opencast site. No hon. Member would like to be faced with a planning application for such a site in the middle of a large urban industrial area. All hon. Members would object to it and would take some encouragement from the Lords amendment, which sets new standards and provides people with some hope.
11.45 pm
I do not know whether the Minister can respond at this stage. Although the Lords amendment helps the case that my constituents will be fighting with regard to the natural environment, the other half of their case against the site in Stoke-on-Trent is that it is in the middle of the city, that it is surrounded by housing and that it would traumatically affect transport on the roads of Stoke-on-Trent. Some Ministers know the city well. I am being reassured that it will not happen, but my constituents will not be satisfied until British Coal reconsiders its plans and develops other sites. I regret, therefore, that the Lords amendment does not go one step further and impose the same high standards as regards the human environment as it imposes for the natural environment. We need that double protection if Stoke-on-Trent is not to be subjected to opencast development.
The city is built on a coal seam. Its economy has been built on coal. We have paid our dues to the country, through the living and working conditions of the people of the city during the past 150 years. The city has gained a great deal from that industry; it has also lost a great deal. During the past 30 years, we have worked extremely hard to re-green our city and to create living conditions that provide hope for the future.
It would be a disastrous step backwards if this opencast site went ahead. I hope that the Lords amendment will give some hope to the people of Stoke-on-Trent that the Department will pay more attention to environmental matters. The Minister has already received many representations from the people of Stoke-on-Trent. I can assure him that he will receive many more unless British Coal withdraws its application. However, for the time


being, I derive some hope from the Lords amendment. I thank the Government and congratulate them on accepting it. It is a good step forward.

Mr. A. Beith: As well as having the largest deep mine in the northern coalfield, my constituency must have about the largest commitment to opencast sites, both large and small, and many more are planned.
I welcome the amendment, not least because it will help to deal better with some of the applications for sites that are far away from the main opencast mining area. I am thinking particularly of the Wandylaw site, north of Alnwick, where an area of open moorland has become an opencast mining site. That was extremely controversial. It has not allayed the fears of those who feel that mining at that site should not have been permitted. There will be applications for sites in other rural parts of the constituency. Those applications should be tested against the amendment, which sets much stricter criteria.
A substantial part of the constituency depends upon opencast coal mining. It provides security of employment. Sites should be opened up on a reasonably planned basis. Many of my constituents have had to contend with the consequences and therefore expect, in compensation, good quality restoration work. We have seen some excellent restoration work carried out by British Coal in my constituency and we hope to see much more. We have also seen an increasing commitment by British Coal to the welfare of the community in the area, and that is most welcome. However, there is no doubt that opencasting operations are a destructive business, and the beauty and attraction that are described in the Lords amendment are disguised from view for quite a long time.
Those who live in the communities in my constituency that are heavily dependent on opencast coal have to be prepared to put up with the disadvantages to find employment. Opencast applications can be very divisive. Some of the applications have divided villages between the areas where people work in opencasting and those where commuters live who see it simply as an intrusion. The areas dependent on opencast coal are often the poorest and most disadvantaged.
I was at a meeting on Monday night in one of the main villages—Widdrington Station—in which many people work in the opencast coal mining industry. That area is one of the most adversely affected by the poll tax in the north of England. As a result of their misfortune in being lumped in with an area that also includes some of the wealthiest outer suburbs of Newcastle, the people find themselves paying a £439 poll tax. A lot of overtime will have to be worked in the opencast industry if there is to be any hope for some of the families to be able to pay an enormously heavy poll tax which has been levied on a community that does not have high wages. The people there will be even more determined to see that there is a future in the opencast industry in the area.
I ask Ministers not only to recognise how important it will be to test new applications against the criteria set out in the Lords amendment, but to see, especially with private contractors, that the obligations implicit in the Lords amendment are carried out. That puts British Coal in a rather odd position. British Coal is involved in the industry as a promoter of opencast coal mining, and I am not sure that the licensing and protective role that goes with that should stay indefinitely with British Coal.
In many ways, I would rather see that handled independently by the Department of Energy, so that moneys held against future restoration work are held by the Department in the interests of the future protection of the environment of the areas concerned. Some of those problems will extend far further than the Lords amendment, which is perhaps the beginning of a more rigorous approach to the granting of opencast planning applications. I hope that that will also involve more rigorous care of the communities that depend on opencast coal mining and require it to be continued so that they can have work, but which have to live with its effects.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I shall be very brief, but I felt it necessary to have a few words about the Lords amendment. I served in Committee, along with Conservative Members. I was terribly disappointed that, despite pressure by the Opposition to stop the extension of opencast mining, we lost. The disappointment, following on from that, was concerned with the question of clearing up the site and putting it back to something like it was before the opencast mining took place. The Opposition especially—because this is where the miners are—know a lot about the mining industry and know of the experiences that people have had with opencast. We know the way in which the land has been left after the operations have finished.
I want to congratulate their Lordships, who have done a first-class job in the amendments. They are a step in the right direction. I also want to congratulate the Government on accepting those sensible amendments on looking after the areas where opencast mining takes place.
I have been married for a long while and I remember the days when I was courting. We used to walk down the beautiful footpaths of Nottinghamshire. Some of them were wedged between the constituencies of Bolsover, Mansfield and Ashfield. They were beautiful walks. I could stand here all night describing those beautiful scenes.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: D. H. Lawrence country.

Mr. Haynes: Yes. It is the most beautiful part of the United Kingdom. There were crowds down lovers lane, and when the lovers went they left the evidence that they had been there behind them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Some Conservative Members have awful minds.
We may still have to amend the Bill because, with the further expansion of opencast mining and bearing in mind what is happening at present, we live in fear that a lot of cowboys will move in and not do the job properly. I hope that British Coal and the Department of Energy will accept their responsibilities and make sure that, where there is opencast mining, the job is done correctly in the interests of the whole community.
I said that I would be brief and I have been. I simply wanted to put that on the record.

Mr. Skinner: This is an important change, which was debated in Committee and on Report. Many people in Britain, not just in the House, believe that there will be a shift towards looking after the environment, and that is reflected in the amendment. The amendment has come too late for many areas, but if it is implemented properly, it will do a lot of good in areas where so far there has been no opencast mining. If it is carried out to the letter, the


flora, fauna and historic buildings will be protected, and that will be to the advantage of many who live in the coalfields, as my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) have said.
I have made it plain in the past that I am not keen on opencast mining. I wish that the amendment had been in operation before Slaley went ahead. That site was almost turned down by the former Secretary of State for the Environment. Then, remarkably, it was agreed by the new Secretary of State, who is supposed to be green and friendly, in his first week in office. That has now gone ahead. Given the different arguments that were put forward at the inquiry, I do not think that the Slaley site would have gone ahead if we had had this amendment.
Another site, adjacent to Slaley, is the Pinnock site. That is a big site, mainly in north-east Derbyshire and partly in Bolsover. If and when an inquiry takes place I want the Minister to look into that development, which has been opposed by the local people and the authorities. I want him to look into it carefully in the light of the amendment. If it is interpreted properly, it could be advantageous to many of our constituents in coalfield areas.
12 midnight
I also want the Minister to bear in mind the fact that there are many historic buildings around the coalfield, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said. I hope that there will not be any opencast mining in the areas around Bolsover castle, or Hardwick hall. Both historic buildings are in the middle of the Derbyshire coalfield, most of which is shut, and ready for opencast mining. The application for an opencast mine at Stamfree has been turned down by Bolsover district council. If there is an inquiry about that decision, and that lands on the Secretary of State's desk, I hope that the Iinister will make it clear that, under the provisions of this amendment, it will be looked at carefully.
We are now paying more attention to the green belt. Some Tory Members have made an impact on this Secretary of State for the Environment and the previous one. It is becoming a matter of concern to Tory Members of Parliament and large sections of the population. That green belt is in the north of England, and in the coalfield areas, too. Notwithstanding the many applications for opencast mines—there will be many because of the pit closures—I suggest that the Minister makes sure that this amendment is not regarded just as a useful measure from the other place that was passed in the night, but is used properly, and carried out to the letter.
The amendment will mean less opencast coal mining. That will be no bad thing, because it might mean that we shall concentrate on deep mining, where we still have an abundance of coal—the estimate is that we have 200 or 300 years' worth of coal left.
This is an important amendment, so I hope that the Minister will tell us how it will affect historic buildings, flora and the fauna, how it will be carried out and how he will ensure that those who object strenuously to opencast mining will be given a fairer crack of the whip than they have had so far. Too often the local authorities in our areas have opposed such applications, only to find that

inspectors, and then Secretaries of State for the Environment, have allowed them to go ahead. I hope that the amendment will have a big impact.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am grateful for the thanks of hon. Members to the Government for accepting the amendment. I am also grateful to the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which this week wrote to Ministers to thank them for the Department's helpful response on the environmental issues raised by the Coal Industry Bill. It was delighted that Ministers were able to respond positively to the new clause, and believe that its final version meets many of its original concerns.
As the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) recognised, the Bill is an important signal to opencast operators that they are expected to maintain high environmental standards at all stages of their planning and operations. I have no doubt that those who need to hear will have heard and will take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Bolsover. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central deserves a full response to the issues that he raised, and I shall be happy to write to him in full with that.

Mr. Barron: With the leave of the House, I should like to thank the Minister for accepting the amendment. Tory Members look rather subdued and tired at this hour, but while we know that there are not 100 of them—as there have not been for the past three Divisions, so they could not close the debate—we are pleased that the Government have accepted the amendment. We hope that the protection of the environment envisaged by the amendment will be carried out on all sites—both British Coal and private sites, the number of which will be increased by the passing of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

PETITION

Human Embryos

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: In a week when 10,000 members of the public lobbied Parliament in support of a ban on the use of human embryos as guinea-pigs, I wish to present two petitions which affirm that the human embryo is a real, live human being and urge that it is therefore entitled to the same legal protection that the rest of us enjoy. One petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the officers and supporters attending the 1989 National Conference of the organisation LIFE … Showeth that we affirm that the newly-fertilised human embryo is a real, living human being. Therefore, we welcome the statement by the Secretary of State for Social Services on 28 January 1985 that "the Government fully recognises the importance of the ethical and moral questions to be addressed in the debate, including the status of the embryo, and they will guard against undermining the special respect that is owed to the family and children and to the creation of human life.


And therefore we oppose all such practices as are recommended in the Warnock Report, which discriminate against the embryo, or violate his/her human dignity and right to life.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the House of Commons, mindful of the Petition for the Protection of The Human Embryo, which was presented to the House of Commons in 1984/85 and bore some two million signatures, will take immediate steps to enact legislation which (a) protects the human embryo from any practices which violate his/her dignity or right to life; (b) forbids any procedure that involves purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned; and (c) forbids all forms of trans-species of fertilisation.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
That is signed by Keith Davies of 50 Eastham road, Billesley, Birmingham and 500 members of LIFE throughout the country.
The second petition is couched in similar terms and is signed by Mr. Hugh Morrison of 18 Devonshire drive, Accrington. It is signed also by 36 members of the Evangelical Fellowship, York street, Church and Peel street Baptist church, Accrington.

To lie upon the Table.

Guest Houses (Uniform Business Rate)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Michael Carttiss: Before the House adjourns, I wish to put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State some of my concerns about the effects of the uniform business rate on seasonal guest houses and private hotels. Several of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies with seasonal tourist interests have discussed the problems with me, including my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Waveney (Mr. Porter). The issues go beyond seaside resorts, of course.
I make four suggestions that could be of help to the tourist industry generally and to small guest houses and private hotels that are open for part of the year in particular. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take these back to the Department of the Environment for urgent consideration.
My first suggestion deals with raising the rateable value at which a small business may be assessed for the 15 per cent.-plus inflation limitation on the total increase for which the owners will be liable for 1990–91 from £10,000 to £15,000, as is the case for London. That would help small businesses generally.
Secondly, I should like the Minister to consider extending the transitional period from five years to eight years, to reach the new rateable value liability, as I believe that the Local Government Finance Act 1988 empowers the Secretary of State so to do.
Thirdly, I should like the Secretary of State to consider extending the 100-day rule for bed-and-breakfast accommodation, although I shall comment on the adverse effects of that rule, since an extension may help some guest houses, but be to the disadvantage of others.
Fourthly—this is my main point—I should like consideration to be given to permitting guest houses and private hotels in seasonal resorts that are normally closed for the greater part of any year to register, either with their district council or with the district valuer, for the period for which they will be open for business and to have their UBR liability assessed accordingly. If a guest house is open for three months, for example, the UBR liability would be 25 per cent. of the figure that had previously been suggested by the district valuer. If a guest house is open for six months, the UBR liability would be 50 per cent.

Mr. Barry Field: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way in such a precious and short Adjournment debate. My hon. Friend and I share many interests, one of which is Yarmouth. We both belong to the Yarmouth Association, which covers all the Yarmouths of the world. Does my hon. Friend agree that one difficulty facing the tourist trade is that proprietors have to publish their prices in advance? They have taken bookings and now find that their overheads are overtaking them.
Another difficulty that I am sure that we in the Isle of Wight share with Great Yarmouth is that we are trying to extend the season and its shoulder months, but fixing the relevant period at 100 days fixes the length of the season in the minds of the proprietors and operators. In addition,


the shopkeepers are open for only a short period, and they are wondering why they have to pay the UBR throughout the year, whereas the guest house owners have not.

Mr. Carttiss: My hon. Friend puts exactly the points that I should like the Minister to take into account. I am grateful to him for intervening and for drawing attention to them.
I have had many letters from guest house proprietors, but should like to quote from just one which puts the points effectively. It is from Mrs. Johnson of North Denes road, which is a popular holiday area. She writes:
it is only right that you should know how the majority of us feel re the new taxes that are about to descend upon us.
No, this is not a moan about the Poll Tax. That is a bug we will all have to bear, even though ours is over £100, more then we were originally told. This is about the Business Tax that is going to put a lot of us out of business over the next couple of years … Not only do we have to find the extra money for the Poll Tax but … will be expected to find another £750 per year
for the UBR.
The letter continues:
On top of this, we have now been told that if we want to have more than one refuse bag a week collected it is going to cost us £4 per week for the privilege! … 
Because of this situation … A have had to limit my work at the guest house to bed and breakfast only and have found a full time job. … Please do all you can to get this message over".
The message is that such proprietors will be put out of business if something is not done.

Mr. John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of the problems seem to arise from the level of valuations? I am going to see the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the chief valuer at the Inland Revenue on this subject, because insufficient account seems to have been taken of the seasonality of the business. Many of the valuations seem to have been based on property values, which have been decapitalised at unrealistic rates.
There is a terrible problem in assessing the proportion of the premises that is occupied by the proprietor. That point does not seem to have been given sufficient weight. About 500 people involved in this business attended a meeting in my constituency, of whom only five had been visited by the valuation officers. A fundamental problem remains to be addressed before we start complaining about anything else.

Mr. Carttiss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose concern I share 100 per cent. I should like to follow his point by giving some examples.
A 28-bedroom private hotel in Kent square, just off the Great Yarmouth sea front, had a rateable value last year of £900; this year its rateable value is £18,000. That gap is, of course, the result of there having been no valuation for 17 years. In Paget road, Great Yarmouth, a small guest house whose rateable value was previously £252 has had an increase to £4,000. A guest house in Prince's road—another area just off the sea front that is popular with visitors—which has 10 bedrooms for letting, has a rateable value of £6,775, while an identical guest house nearby in the same road has a valuation of £4,000. I know that the Minister is not responsible for valuation, but this highlights the tremendous problems of guest house owners.
I do not often agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), but in The Independent of 6 March, he was reported as having said:
The Government just does not seem to know what it is doing or what the impact of the uniform business rate would be.
There is no rhyme or reason in assessing two identical guest houses at totally different valuations. In the case that I have mentioned, the difference is £2,000. As a result, people will have to pay a great deal more.
On the question of the 100-day rule, I have said that the Minister might consider an extension. This, however, is a matter on which there are mixed views. As a consequence of the 100-day rule, many proprietors may find it necessary to opt for restricted opening periods. This is particularly galling at a time when everybody in my borough and, I am sure, in other seaside resorts is making strenuous efforts to extend the holiday season into April, May and October.
Places such as Bournemouth and Blackpool have a good season already, and in Great Yarmouth the season is getting much closer to May to early September. The borough council, through its economic development unit and publicity department, the Great Yarmouth Holiday Association and the publicity association representing so many of the people in the holiday industry, has been doing its best to extend the season, but the 100-day rule could limit that.

Mr. Butterfill: On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Carttiss: Very briefly.

Mr. Butterfill: The 100-day rule is causing great concern in my constituency. I served on the Standing Committee that dealt with the legislation. At that time, the concession was intended to apply to small cottages that might be let for a few days during the season. We are now in danger of creating a two-tier market—some people having to comply with fire regulations and pay VAT and the business rate, but others moonlighting and not doing any of those things. It seems quite outrageous.

Mr. Carttiss: This is a problem that some of the guest house owners in my constituency have identified. Some people would like to see the 100-day rule extended to 140 days, as in the case of self-catering chalets. If self-catering chalets are in business for only 140 days, they will be exempt from the UBR. Other guest house proprietors point out, just as my hon. Friend has done, that, with private houses opening up for bed and breakfast, without having to comply with the stringent fire and public health regulations that apply to professional hoteliers, there could be unfair competition.
There is a real dilemma as to whether there should be a 100-day rule at all, or whether it should be extended to 140 days. Within the holiday industry overall, there is genuine disagreement about that. It is a matter that needs to be considered. As I have said, I am particularly concerned about the prospect of the holiday season being shortened as a result of the 100-day rule.
We in Great Yarmouth reckon that, on the basis of the lowest estimate, our holiday industry brings £122 million into the area. That is a very significant contribution to the economy of a town that currently has an unemployment level of 8 per cent. That is way above the regional average for East Anglia, which is 3·4 per cent. Last August we had a 5·5 per cent. unemployment rate in the Great Yarmouth


travel-to-work area, which is slightly larger than my constituency. That highlights the importance of the holiday industry having a season which is not truncated by the operation of the rule, if it leads to guest houses and private hotels generally opting for a shorter season to escape the enormous increases to which the UBR could lead.
I want to emphasise the concern expressed by my constituents. Some of my hon. Friends have spoken to me about similar experiences in their constituencies. There should not be any insuperable reason why the rateable value, which is established on the basis of a business being open all year, should not produce a liability which relates to the period of three or four months, or whatever, for which the business is registered to be open. If that were done, it would help to ameliorate the considerable increases that many people in the holiday industry will experience.
I commend these suggestions to the Minister, and I look forward with considerable interest to his response. In my constituency and in other seaside resorts, the future of many people is dependent on the holiday industry. Their ears will be acutely tuned to hear from the Minister a solution to the horrendous problem that they will face from the increased UBR, plus the community charge, plus the charge for refuse collection which my borough council has imposed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) on securing the debate and on putting the concerns of his constituents clearly and cogently. I listened with great interest to what he had to say, because we are introducing a number of new rules and regulations, and we recognise that in some cases they have created uncertainty and difficulty. We are always anxious to hear how the system is operating on the ground, particularly in a holiday area such as the area my hon. Friend represents.
Let me deal first with the general points which my hon. Friend raised about the new uniform business rate and the way in which the transitional arrangements will operate. Some rate bills will rise substantially under the new system, but that is largely due not to the uniform business rate but to revaluation. I think all hon. Members concede that we cannot run a system based on rateable values which are 17 years out of date. If we are to have a rate-based system, we must have a revaluation. That by definition means that there will be changes in values and therefore in the rates which are payable. If that was not the case, there would be no point in a revaluation.

Mr. Butterfill: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that, in future, revaluations will be done on a quinquennial basis and will not be allowed to slip behind again?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think we did delay it too long. I assure him that we firmly intend to revalue every five years from now on. Indeed, it will require primary legislation not to have a revaluation every five years.
Businesses cannot, of course, be expected to cope with very large rises overnight; that is why we introduced transitional arrangements. Many of the businesses in my hon. Friends' constituencies will have a new rateable value

below £10,000, which will qualify them for the more generous phasing limits of 15 per cent. in real terms on increases, and 15·5 per cent. in real terms on reductions. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth argued for a higher threshold. We thought long and hard about that and consulted widely on it last year. As a result, we significantly improved the protection available for small businesses.
The arrangements were enacted in the autumn, in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, and further primary legislation would be needed to change them. Apart from that practical constraint, I think that we have already gone a long way to ameliorate the impact of the new system; given the pressing need for a fairer distribution of the rates burden between businesses, I feel that we should not delay unnecessarily by imposing too long a transition period. The proposed threshold of £10,000 outside London already ensures that about 75 per cent. of all business properties will benefit, and I expect that the percentage in my hon. Friend's constituency is roughly the same.
My hon. Friend asked for an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would exercise the power available to him to extend the transitional arrangements beyond the initial five-year period. We have powers to extend it, and I appreciate that businesses would be reassured if we gave a commitment now to use them. It is, however, difficult to judge at this stage what kind of transitional scheme—if any—will be needed after the 1995 revaluation, because it is impossible to predict what will happen to rent levels over the next five years.
There is an inverse relationship between rent and rates. Businesses tend to look at their total occupancy costs; if rates rise in real terms—other things being equal—market rents will tend to fall relative to other costs. The next revaluation may throw up different rateable values, and businesses that have not reached their full new rate bills by 1995 may then find that their prospective rate liability is reduced. That is why we think it best to delay a decision on a further transitional period until nearer the time, when the facts become clearer. In other words, we must wait and see.
The transitional arrangements will, I believe, afford the maximum protection for businesses facing large increases, while at the same time being consistent with the need to bring in the new system as soon as possible. Once it is fully in place, businesses will benefit from the assurance—written into statute—that the rate poundage cannot rise each year by more than the rate of inflation, and may rise by less. They have not received that important protection hitherto.
My hon. Friend also mentioned local authority services, drawing attention to the charges made in his constituency for the collection of commercial waste. Refuse collection is currently carried out under the provisions of sections 12 to 14 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and the related Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988, which define and clarify local authorities' responsibilities for the collection and disposal of waste.
One of the key benefits of implementing sections 12 to 14 of the Act is that they provide much clearer definitions of waste, and the basis for a more commercially orientated and accountable collection service. The Act defines commercial waste as, among other things,


waste from premises used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a trade or business".
In our view, waste from properties with mixed business and domestic use falls within that definition. We were asked to make that clear in regulations, and we did so.
We think that, as a general rule, a reasonable charge should be levied on all waste collected from commercial premises, but the Act gives local authorities the power to waive commercial refuse collection charges in appropriate cases. We are aware that it has been the practice of many authorities to recognise that part of the waste from mixed-use properties is domestic by making a reduced charge, or allowing, say, for one bin to be collected every week. So the decision rests with local authorities.
Hon. Members' constituents who have small businesses, mixed hereditaments and mixed properties which are experiencing difficulty should take the matter up in the first instance with their local authorities, but I am aware that councils are taking quite widely varying approaches to the problem, and we are currently analysing responses to our inquiries to see what further direct advice is necessary to those waste collection authorities.
My hon. Friend also expressed the concerns of his constituents who run guest houses and so on, about the payment of business rates and the community charge. He particularly referred to the operation of the so-called 100 day rule.
As for the payment of business rates and community charge, as my hon. Friend will know, the valuation officer will assess only that part of the premises which is used for business purposes. So although a personal community charge will be payable by the owner and anyone who has his or her sole or main residence on the premises, the part of the property used for domestic purposes will not be subject to rates. Also, of course, those who must pay both business rates and the community charge will be eligible for transitional relief, if appropriate, in respect of either or both payments.

Mr. Carttiss: Who is responsible for ensuring that the transitional relief information is available? I understand that the district authority is responsible, but not much information about that is coming out of town halls.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am sorry to hear that. The district authorities are in possession of all the necessary information. It is disturbing if it is not getting through to the people who may benefit. It is important that people avail themselves of the relief, particularly transitional relief, that is available. If they contact my hon. Friend, who will pass on the information to me, I will ensure that full and proper information is supplied to the people affected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) referred to certain difficulties, which he identified, about various rateable values being allocated. I need not remind him that rateable values are not, and will not be, based on the capital value of the premises concerned but, rather, reflect market rents. But if startling differences and inconsistencies are showing up in his

constituency, he will remind those concerned that there is an appeal mechanism which we hope will deal with the problem.

Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is rare in any part of the country, and certainly in my constituency, for market rents to be passing in respect of this type of property. Valuation officers are therefore forced to decapitalise capital values, and that is where the problem is arising.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes. I am anxious to deal with his question about the so-called 100-day rule, because my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth fairly pointed out the pros and cons and is aware that too-generous treatment of supposedly casual bed-and-breakfast businesses would represent unfair competition for the hotel trade in general.
We must run a business rating system that tries to sweep in all those who are running commercial businesses from houses and premises. Not to do so would undermine the whole concept of business rating.
We decided to make a concession, if I may call it that, for those who are clearly running a bed-and-breakfast business on a purely incidental or casual basis from their own homes. I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the conflicting views on this issue. We considered the matter carefully before deciding on the 100-day threshold.
I remind my hon. Friend that, when the premises are valued for rateable purposes, the valuation officer will have regard to the annual value of the relevant part. That will inevitably reflect the seasonal nature of any business use. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the system already works in much the same way as he advocated. Assuming that the season runs for less than 12 months, the rateable value of a guest house will be lower than it would be—all other things being equal—if the season ran all the year round.
We thought long and hard before we decided on the 100-day threshold. It represents a fair balance between the hotel trade and those who run a business in nothing more than a casual or occasional way but nevertheless provide an important service to seaside resorts, which need a higher capacity to cater for tourists and visitors during the height of the business season.
If members of the hotel and catering trade in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth are still unhappy about the operation of the rule, I or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), will be only too pleased to meet a delegation and talk the matter through person to person.
That is all that I have time for in this Adjournment debate, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth for raising the issues that are of concern to him. I also thank my other hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who have spoken. He, too, is vigilant to represent those who provide such an important service to our domestic tourists and holidaymakers.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to One o'clock.